Back to Journals » Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology » Volume 10

Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study

Authors Kerscher M, Agsten K, Kravtsov M, Prager W

Received 23 February 2017

Accepted for publication 28 April 2017

Published 29 June 2017 Volume 2017:10 Pages 239—247

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S135441

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Jeffrey Weinberg

Martina Kerscher,1 Karla Agsten,2 Maria Kravtsov,3 Welf Prager4

1Department of Cosmetic Science, University of Hamburg, 2SCIderm GmbH, Hamburg, Germany; 3Anteis S.A., Geneva, Switzerland; 4Prager & Partner Dermatologische Praxis, Hamburg, Germany

Background: Enhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of Cohesive Polydensified Matrix® 26 mg/mL HA gel (CPM-26) and Vycross® 20 mg/ml HA gel (VYC-20) in a controlled, randomized, evaluator-blind, split-face clinical study.
Patients and methods: Subjects with moderate-to-severe malar volume loss on the Merz Aesthetics Scale (MAS) received CPM-26 on one side and VYC-20 on the contralateral side of the face. Effectiveness assessments were performed by blinded evaluators including photographic and live MAS ratings and live Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) ratings. Calculations of anatomical volume variations at month 3 (M3), month 6 (M6), month 12 (M12) and month 18 (M18) were also performed.
Results: Non-inferiority of CPM-26 versus VYC-20 was demonstrated at M3 (primary end point) based on MAS. GAIS rating showed that significantly more subjects had better improvement with CPM-26 than with VYC-20 at month 1, M3, M12 and M18 (p=0.0032, p=0.0074, p=0.0384 and p=0.0110, respectively). Standardized evaluation of volume variations from baseline to M3, M12 and M18 showed that CPM-26 created more volume augmentation at all time points, and the difference was significant at M3.
Conclusion: CPM-26 was non-inferior to VYC-20 based on MAS ratings at M3 and demonstrated a favorable safety and effectiveness profile for midfacial volume enhancement with results lasting up to M18.

Keywords: cohesive polydensified matrix, hyaluronic acid fillers, Belotero® Volume, Modélis® SHAPE, Juvéderm® VOLUMA®, volumizing

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php 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.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other articles by this author:

Combined aesthetic interventions for prevention of facial ageing, and restoration and beautification of face and body

Fabi S, Pavicic T, Braz A, Green JB, Seo K, van Loghem JAJ

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 2017, 10:423-429

Published Date: 30 October 2017

Tailored botulinum toxin type A injections in aesthetic medicine: consensus panel recommendations for treating the forehead based on individual facial anatomy and muscle tone

Anido J, Arenas D, Arruabarrena C, Dominguez-Gil A, Fajardo C, Mira M, Murillo J, Ribé N, Rivera H, Ruiz del Cueto S, Silvestre H, Tirado M

Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology 2017, 10:413-421

Published Date: 19 October 2017

Vulvar varicosities: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention

Gavrilov SG

International Journal of Women's Health 2017, 9:463-475

Published Date: 28 June 2017