Back to Journals » Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology » Volume 9

Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review

Authors Prasetyo AD, Prager W, Rubin MG, Moretti EA, Nikolis A, Ducher G

Received 17 February 2016

Accepted for publication 3 May 2016

Published 8 September 2016 Volume 2016:9 Pages 257—280


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Jeffrey Weinberg

Adri D Prasetyo,1 Welf Prager,2 Mark G Rubin,3 Ernesto A Moretti,4 Andreas Nikolis5

1Rejuva Skin & Beauty, Surabaya, Indonesia; 2Prager & Partner, Hamburg, Germany; 3University of California, San Diego, CA, USA; 4Gamma Health Group, Sanatorio Los Arroyos, Santa Fe, Republic of Argentina; 5Victoria Park Clinical Research Centre, Westmount, QC, Canada

Background: Cohesive monophasic polydensified fillers show unique viscoelastic properties and variable density of hyaluronic acid, allowing for a homogeneous tissue integration and distribution of the material.
Objective: The aim of this paper was to review the clinical data regarding the performance, tolerability, and safety of the Belotero® fillers for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation.
Methods: A literature search was performed up until May 31, 2015 to identify all relevant articles on Belotero® fillers (Basic/Balance, Hydro, Soft, Intense, Volume) and equivalent products (Esthélis®, Mesolis®, Fortélis®, Modélis®).
Results: This comprehensive review included 26 papers. Findings from three randomized controlled trials showed a greater reduction in nasolabial fold severity with Belotero® Basic/Balance than with collagen (at 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks, n=118) and Restylane® (at 4 weeks, n=40), and higher patient satisfaction with Belotero® Intense than with Perlane® (at 2 weeks, n=20). With Belotero® Basic/Balance, an improvement of at least 1 point on the severity scale can be expected in ~80% of patients 1–6 months after injection, with an effect still visible at 8–12 months. Positive findings were also reported with Belotero® Volume (no reduction in hyaluronic acid volume at 12 months, as demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging), Soft (improvement in the esthetic outcomes when used in a sequential approach), and Hydro (improvement in skin appearance in all patients). The most common adverse effects were mild-to-moderate erythema, edema, and hematoma, most of which were temporary. There were no reports of Tyndall effect, nodules, granulomas, or tissue necrosis.
Conclusion: Clinical evidence indicates sustainable esthetic effects, good safety profile, and long-term tolerability of the Belotero® fillers, particularly Belotero® Basic/Balance and Intense.

Keywords: CPM®, dermal filler, facial lines, filling, nasolabial fold, wrinkle

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.

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