Back to Journals » Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology » Volume 4

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and longevity of two different hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in the treatment of severe nasolabial folds: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, within-subject study

Authors Goodman GJ , Bekhor, Rich, Rosen, Halstead M, Rogers

Published 20 December 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 197—205


Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Greg J Goodman1, Phillip Bekhor2, Michael Rich3, Robert H Rosen4, Michael B Halstead5, John D Rogers5
1Dermatology Institute of Victoria, South Yarra, Victoria, Australia; 2Laser Dermatology, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia; 3enRich Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Centre, Armadale, Victoria, Australia; 4Southderm Pty Ltd, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia; 5Allergan Australia, Gordon, New South Wales, Australia

Background: Commercially available hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers have distinct physicochemical properties related to their specific manufacturing technology, including HA concentration, cross-linking percentage, and particle size. These factors may determine treatment effectiveness, safety, and longevity; however, this requires confirmation in the clinic.
Methods: To compare the efficacy, safety, and longevity of two distinct HA-based dermal fillers in the correction of severe nasolabial folds (NLFs), a 24 mg/mL smooth gel (Juvederm ULTRA PLUS™ [JUP]) and a 20 mg/mL particulate gel (Perlane® [PER]) were injected in a total of 80 normal, healthy subjects using a split face design and were followed for 12 months in this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study.
Results: Both fillers achieved a clinically relevant NLF correction (one point or more improvement, based on a validated NLF severity scale). However, JUP displayed greater longevity, with this correction maintained in a significantly larger percentage of NLFs after 6 months (physician's evaluation) or 9 months (subject's evaluation) and thereafter for the remainder of the study (70% vs 45%; P = 0.0002 and 62.5% vs 46.3%; P = 0.01 at month 12, based on physician and subject assessments, respectively). At month 12, 71.4% of the subjects nominated a preference for the NLF injected with JUP (P < 0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.
Conclusion: These results suggest that different physicochemical properties of HA-based fillers, associated with distinct manufacturing technologies, may influence treatment longevity in the correction of volume deficits. This may relate to a differential resistance to hyaluronidase and/or free radical degradation as previously documented in vitro.

Keywords: hyaluronic acid, dermal fillers, volume deficit, nasolabial folds, randomized, controlled

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.