Linda Kleine-Börger1, Robert Meyer2, Alexander Kalies3, Martina Kerscher1. 1. Cosmetic Science, Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Institute for Technical and Macromolecular Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Institute for Pharmacy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical indications, applications, and effect of the injectable hyaluronic acid range skin quality boosters (SQBs) are different than those of filler products. Material properties are increasingly being discussed for differentiation and in connection with clinical effects and esthetic indications. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SQB products can be differentiated from filler products by their physicochemical material properties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Physicochemical properties (extrusion force, swelling degree, rheology, and cohesivity) of two SQBs (BELR , JUVVE ) were compared with those of fillers (BELB , JUVVT ) using the same manufacturing technology. RESULTS: Cohesivity was almost equal for SQBs and fillers. Few statistically significant differences in physicochemical properties were found. Properties of SQBs differed from fillers mainly in their delta of rheological properties and extrusion force. CONCLUSION: In this study, physicochemical differences between SQB and filler were determined and described, supporting the presence of two categories and their different clinical indications and applications.
BACKGROUND: The clinical indications, applications, and effect of the injectable hyaluronic acid range skin quality boosters (SQBs) are different than those of filler products. Material properties are increasingly being discussed for differentiation and in connection with clinical effects and esthetic indications. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SQB products can be differentiated from filler products by their physicochemical material properties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Physicochemical properties (extrusion force, swelling degree, rheology, and cohesivity) of two SQBs (BELR , JUVVE ) were compared with those of fillers (BELB , JUVVT ) using the same manufacturing technology. RESULTS: Cohesivity was almost equal for SQBs and fillers. Few statistically significant differences in physicochemical properties were found. Properties of SQBs differed from fillers mainly in their delta of rheological properties and extrusion force. CONCLUSION: In this study, physicochemical differences between SQB and filler were determined and described, supporting the presence of two categories and their different clinical indications and applications.