Efficacy and Durability of Two Hyaluronic Acid–Based Fillers in the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Actively Controlled Clinical Pilot Study
Article first published online: 2 JUN 2011
© 2011 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.
How to Cite
NAST, A., REYTAN, N., HARTMANN, V., PATHIRANA, D., BACHMANN, F., ERDMANN, R. and RZANY, B. (2011), Efficacy and Durability of Two Hyaluronic Acid–Based Fillers in the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Actively Controlled Clinical Pilot Study. Dermatologic Surgery. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.01993.x
- Article first published online: 2 JUN 2011
BACKGROUND This pilot study compared a monophasic hyaluronic acid dermal filler with a biphasic filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.
METHODS Participant- and assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial involving participants with moderate to severe nasolabial folds. Split-face design comparing a monophase hyaluronic acid (HA) filler (mono-HA) with a biphasic HA filler (bi-HA). Injection with touch-up after 1 month. Wrinkle improvement was measured before and after injection and after 1, 2, 4, and 7 months, using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale as outcome criteria. An optional treatment was offered at the end of the study, with participants allowed to choose one of the products.
OBJECTIVE Evaluation of efficacy and safety of both products.
RESULTS Both products showed immediate, good results after injection and touch-up and demonstrated good durability over time. Participant preference for optional treatment at the end of the study favoured mono-HA. Both products were well tolerated, without serious adverse events.
CONCLUSION The effect after injection of mono-HA and bi-HA is generally comparable, although there was a trend in favor of mono-HA.
Materials and funding for this study were provided by Teoxane, Geneva, Switzerland.