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

  1. ALEXANDER NAST MD,
  2. NATALIE REYTAN MD,
  3. VANESSA HARTMANN MD,
  4. DELANO PATHIRANA MD,
  5. FRANK BACHMANN MD,
  6. RICARDO ERDMANN,
  7. BERTHOLD RZANY MD, SCM

Article first published online: 2 JUN 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.01993.x

Additional Information

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

Author Information

  1. Division of Evidence-Based Medicine, Klinik für Dermatologie, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. Alexander Nast, MD, Division of Evidence Based Medicine (dEBM), Klinik für Dermatologie, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, D—10117 Berlin, Germany, or e-mail: alexander.nast@charite.de

Publication History

  1. Article first published online: 2 JUN 2011

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (1067K)

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.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (1067K)