Yiwen Huang1, Yibin Zhang1, Xiaojing Fei1, Qi Fan2, Jie Mao3. 1. Medical Affairs Department, Tigermed-Jyton, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 3. Medical Affairs Department, Tigermed-Jyton, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. jiemao0414@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have become the most popular dermal fillers for esthetic nasolabial folds (NLFs) correction. Based on the cross-linking method, they can be classified as monophasic or biphasic types. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of monophasic HA fillers with that of biphasic HA fillers for treatment of NLFs. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese databases were searched from inception to January 2021. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment outcomes of a monophasic HA filler with a biphasic HA filler for esthetic NLF correction were selected. Twenty-two RCTs with totally 1848 subjects were included to this meta-analysis. A significantly higher improvement of NLF severity score was seen for monophasic fillers than biphasic fillers at 2 (p = 0.005), 8 (p <0.0001), 12 (p = 0.03), 16 (p = 0.005), 24 (p <0.00001), 36 (p = 0.007), and 52 week (p <0.0001) after treatment. RESULTS: The effect was retained regardless of ethnicity, total injection volume, and baseline NLF severity. More subjects preferred monophasic fillers over biphasic ones (≤7 months: RR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.11; >7 months: RR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.86). Rate of post-injection pain was significantly lower for monophasic fillers (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, p <0.0001), but no statistical difference was observed for other post-injection adverse events. Compared to biphasic HA fillers, monophasic HA fillers were associated with a greater and more durable esthetic NLFs improvement, a lower rate of post-injection pain, and were favored by more patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have become the most popular dermal fillers for esthetic nasolabial folds (NLFs) correction. Based on the cross-linking method, they can be classified as monophasic or biphasic types. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of monophasic HA fillers with that of biphasic HA fillers for treatment of NLFs. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese databases were searched from inception to January 2021. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment outcomes of a monophasic HA filler with a biphasic HA filler for esthetic NLF correction were selected. Twenty-two RCTs with totally 1848 subjects were included to this meta-analysis. A significantly higher improvement of NLF severity score was seen for monophasic fillers than biphasic fillers at 2 (p = 0.005), 8 (p <0.0001), 12 (p = 0.03), 16 (p = 0.005), 24 (p <0.00001), 36 (p = 0.007), and 52 week (p <0.0001) after treatment. RESULTS: The effect was retained regardless of ethnicity, total injection volume, and baseline NLF severity. More subjects preferred monophasic fillers over biphasic ones (≤7 months: RR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.11; >7 months: RR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.86). Rate of post-injection pain was significantly lower for monophasic fillers (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, p <0.0001), but no statistical difference was observed for other post-injection adverse events. Compared to biphasic HA fillers, monophasic HA fillers were associated with a greater and more durable esthetic NLFs improvement, a lower rate of post-injection pain, and were favored by more patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Hyun Jung Kwon; Eun Jung Ko; Sun Young Choi; Eun Ja Choi; Yu-Jin Jang; Beom Joon Kim; Yang Won Lee Journal: J Cosmet Dermatol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.696