Cargando…

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

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 performanc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prasetyo, Adri D, Prager, Welf, Rubin, Mark G, Moretti, Ernesto A, Nikolis, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27660479
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S106551
_version_ 1782453296025305088
author Prasetyo, Adri D
Prager, Welf
Rubin, Mark G
Moretti, Ernesto A
Nikolis, Andreas
author_facet Prasetyo, Adri D
Prager, Welf
Rubin, Mark G
Moretti, Ernesto A
Nikolis, Andreas
author_sort Prasetyo, Adri D
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5021061
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50210612016-09-22 Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review Prasetyo, Adri D Prager, Welf Rubin, Mark G Moretti, Ernesto A Nikolis, Andreas Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol Review 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. Dove Medical Press 2016-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5021061/ /pubmed/27660479 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S106551 Text en © 2016 Prasetyo et al. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). 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.
spellingShingle Review
Prasetyo, Adri D
Prager, Welf
Rubin, Mark G
Moretti, Ernesto A
Nikolis, Andreas
Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title_full Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title_fullStr Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title_full_unstemmed Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title_short Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
title_sort hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27660479
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S106551
work_keys_str_mv AT prasetyoadrid hyaluronicacidfillerswithcohesivepolydensifiedmatrixforsofttissueaugmentationandrejuvenationaliteraturereview
AT pragerwelf hyaluronicacidfillerswithcohesivepolydensifiedmatrixforsofttissueaugmentationandrejuvenationaliteraturereview
AT rubinmarkg hyaluronicacidfillerswithcohesivepolydensifiedmatrixforsofttissueaugmentationandrejuvenationaliteraturereview
AT morettiernestoa hyaluronicacidfillerswithcohesivepolydensifiedmatrixforsofttissueaugmentationandrejuvenationaliteraturereview
AT nikolisandreas hyaluronicacidfillerswithcohesivepolydensifiedmatrixforsofttissueaugmentationandrejuvenationaliteraturereview