A prospective, observational study of the volumizing effect of open-label aesthetic use of Juvéderm<sup>®</sup>VOLUMA<sup>®</sup>with Lidocaine in mid-face area

Philipp‐Dormston, Wolfgang G.; Eccleston, D.; Boulle, Koenraad De; Hilton, Said; Elzen, Helga Van Den; Nathan, Myooran

doi:10.3109/14764172.2014.910079

Cited by 37 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When injected in the upper cheeks, they accentuate the projection of the zygomaticomalar eminence and thus allow restoration of the convex heart-shaped face associated with youth and attractiveness 5–8…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kerscher¹,

Agsten²,

Kravtsov³

et al. 2017

CCID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEnhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.ObjectiveThe 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 methodsSubjects 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.ResultsNon-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.ConclusionCPM-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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kerscher¹,

Agsten²,

Kravtsov³

et al. 2017

CCID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further advances in the offerings of dermal fillers include the development of formulations that incorporate lidocaine to reduce the pain associated with administering the product . Novel formulations of the CPM‐HA range that incorporate lidocaine into the molecule (CPM‐HA/lido) have recently been developed to reduce procedural pain and have subsequently been launched in several European countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective, comparative survey to investigate practitioners’ satisfaction with a cohesive, polydensified‐matrix^®, hyaluronic acid‐based filler gel with and without lidocaine for the treatment of facial wrinkles

Prager¹,

Micheels²

2015

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, Philipp-Dormston et al [58] published a prospective, open-label, observational study, which evaluated patients' satisfaction and experience of treatment with Juvéderm Voluma XC Ò for midface augmentation, immediately after and 21 days post-treatment. Subject satisfaction questionnaire (SSQ) scores of ''delighted'' or ''happy'' were given by 95.6 % of subjects immediately after the injection and by 93.7 % of subjects at day 21.…”

Section: Juvédermmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dermal Fillers: An Update

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injection of dermal fillers is the second most frequent nonsurgical cosmetic procedure performed in the USA. Dermal fillers are an option in the treatment of volume deficiency, scars, and rhytides; facial sculpting; facial contouring; and augmentation of specific anatomical sites such as the lips. The number of injectable dermal fillers available on the market increases yearly. Dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons should regularly review treatment options to provide patients with safe and effective filler options. This paper extensively reviews the properties of the available fillers, such as their rheology, longevity, and adverse effects, and how these properties affect the choice of filler agent for a particular patient or a particular site. Also, trends in dermal filler injections are discussed.

show abstract

A prospective, observational study of the volumizing effect of open-label aesthetic use of Juvéderm^®VOLUMA^®with Lidocaine in mid-face area

Cited by 37 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

A prospective, comparative survey to investigate practitioners’ satisfaction with a cohesive, polydensified‐matrix^®, hyaluronic acid‐based filler gel with and without lidocaine for the treatment of facial wrinkles

Dermal Fillers: An Update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A prospective, observational study of the volumizing effect of open-label aesthetic use of Juvéderm®VOLUMA®with Lidocaine in mid-face area

Cited by 37 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

A prospective, comparative survey to investigate practitioners’ satisfaction with a cohesive, polydensified‐matrix®, hyaluronic acid‐based filler gel with and without lidocaine for the treatment of facial wrinkles

Dermal Fillers: An Update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A prospective, observational study of the volumizing effect of open-label aesthetic use of Juvéderm^®VOLUMA^®with Lidocaine in mid-face area

A prospective, comparative survey to investigate practitioners’ satisfaction with a cohesive, polydensified‐matrix^®, hyaluronic acid‐based filler gel with and without lidocaine for the treatment of facial wrinkles