Introduction: Given its structural properties, it would be a mistake to assume that a single type of filler fits perfectly to each anatomical region of the nose in nonsurgical rhinoplasty procedures. Therefore, we aimed to develop a hybrid treatment model by applying two different structural types of fillers. Hyaluronic acid (HA), a hydrophilic material, and agarose gel (AG), a nonhydrophilic and high G-prime material, were used in the study according to their advantages and disadvantages. Methods: Patients who presented to the office desiring filler treatment for nonsurgical correction of the nose in a 2-year period were enrolled in the study. HA was used intradermally 0.1 ml per each point in the tip defining points and supratip. Injections of 0.4–0.7 and 0.4–0.6 ml AG were used supraperiosteally in the radix and nasal spine, respectively. Clinical improvement was evaluated two weeks later using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale from 1 to 5 (1: exceptional improvement; 5: worsened patient). Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a scale from 0 to 10 (0: not satisfied; 10: very satisfied). Results: A total of 32 patients (mean age: 27 years) were enrolled in the study. Mean score of patient satisfaction was 9.09 of 10 after injection and 9 of 10 after 2 weeks. Clinical evaluation scores after injection were 1.72 of 5 and 1.69 of 5 on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. No major complication was observed. Conclusion: The HA and AG filler hybrid concept applied in different anatomical locations represents a safe and convenient option for nonsurgical rhinoplasty procedures.

Background Dermal fillers currently in the market have several advantages and disadvantages over each other. Agarose gel (AG) is a unique material due to its special rheological characteristics and gel forming capability. Objectives The authors aimed to share their clinical experience on AG for a variety of facial augmentation procedures and its long-term results. Methods The study population consisted of 700 patients (532 females; 168 males) aged 18 to 52 years. Follow-up visits were at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the injections. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a scale from 0 to10 using a survey and clinical improvement was evaluated using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) by 2 independent plastic surgeons before the injection and at 1-year follow-up. Results Eighty-two percent of the patients scored 1 or 2 (exceptional or great improvement) on GAIS. Eighty-five percent of the patients scored 8 or above (very satisfied). Most patients experienced at least 80% persistence of effect at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions AG appears to be suitable for a variety of facial augmentation and contouring applications, as it is safe and has long-lasting favorable cosmetic efficacy.