Changsik Pak1, Jihoon Park1, Jinmyung Hong1, Jaehoon Jeong1, Saik Bang2, Chan Yeong Heo1. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted this clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety between Neuramis Deep and Restylane in the correction of nasolabial folds. METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, matched-pairs, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01585220), we evaluated a total of 67 subjects (n=67). All the subjects underwent Neuramis Deep treatment on one side and Restylane on the contralateral side of the bilateral nasolabial folds at a ratio of 1:1. To compare the efficacy of Neuramis Deep and Restylane, we evaluated the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale scores and those of the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. In addition, we compared the safety of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on adverse events, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Neuramis Deep was not inferior in improving the nasolabial folds as compared with Restylane. In addition, there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. There were no significant differences in safety parameters between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results indicate that Neuramis Deep may be a safe, effective material for improving the nasolabial folds. However, further studies are warranted to compare the tolerability of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on histopathologic findings.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We conducted this clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety between Neuramis Deep and Restylane in the correction of nasolabial folds. METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, matched-pairs, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01585220), we evaluated a total of 67 subjects (n=67). All the subjects underwent Neuramis Deep treatment on one side and Restylane on the contralateral side of the bilateral nasolabial folds at a ratio of 1:1. To compare the efficacy of Neuramis Deep and Restylane, we evaluated the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale scores and those of the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. In addition, we compared the safety of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on adverse events, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS:Neuramis Deep was not inferior in improving the nasolabial folds as compared with Restylane. In addition, there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. There were no significant differences in safety parameters between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results indicate that Neuramis Deep may be a safe, effective material for improving the nasolabial folds. However, further studies are warranted to compare the tolerability of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on histopathologic findings.
Authors: Maria Rozeli de Souza Quirino; Ana Christina Claro Neves; Márcia Sampaio Campos; Adriana Aigotti Haberbeck Brandão; Ana Lia Anbinder Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Rhoda S Narins; Fredric Brandt; James Leyden; Z Paul Lorenc; Mark Rubin; Stacy Smith Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Seong Sung Kwak; Kwang Ho Yoon; Jin Hee Kwon; Won-Ho Kang; Chang-Hoon Rhee; Gi-Hyeok Yang; Deu John M Cruz; Woo-Chan Son Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol Date: 2021-03-08
Authors: Tomasz Stefura; Artur Kacprzyk; Jakub Droś; Marta Krzysztofik; Oksana Skomarovska; Marta Fijałkowska; Mateusz Koziej Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 2.708