Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Dermatol Surg. 2012 Jul;38(7 Pt 2):1143-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02468.x.

A prospective, split-face, randomized, comparative study of safety and 12-month longevity of three formulations of hyaluronic acid dermal filler for treatment of nasolabial folds.

Author information

1
Dermatologikum, Hamburg, Germany. prager@dermatologikum.de

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Data regarding several hyaluronic acids (HAs) used identically for facial tissue augmentation have heretofore been unavailable.

OBJECTIVES:

This prospective, split-face, randomized, two-armed study sought to determine the long-term safety and effectiveness of three HAs (HA-1 (Belotero Basic/Balance), HA-2 (Restylane), and HA-3 (Juvéderm Ultra 3/Juvéderm Ultra Plus XC) in the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs).

METHODS:

Twenty participants in Arm A received HA-1 in one NLF and HA-2 in the other. In Arm B, 20 participants received HA-1 in one NLF and HA-3 in the other. Injection was at visit 2, with follow-up visits at 1, 6, 9, and 12 months. Mean volume of HA was slightly <1.5 mL/NLF.

RESULTS:

Adverse events were unremarkable across all HAs, with injection site erythema being the most frequent adverse event. Mean pretreatment NLF severity rating for both arms was 2.3; at 12 months, mean posttreatment severity rating was 1.5 for HA-1/HA-2 and 1.6 for HA-1/HA-3. Although not statistically significant, participants tended to show a preference for HA-1.

CONCLUSION:

All three HAs provided essentially equivalent results, except for 4-week evenness results, which favored HA-1. Injection volumes of the three HAs were also similar.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center