Exploring the effectiveness of a new generation of collagen-stimulating fillers

Strawford, Ian

doi:10.12968/joan.2017.6.5.s26

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fillers using bioresorbable polymers have attracted much attention in this filler market. Unlike hyaluronic acid filler, which maintains the volume of skin with the volume of the product itself, the bioresorbable polymer filler regenerates and maintains the volume naturally by inducing the production of collagen as the polymer is biodegraded . Polycaprolactone (PCL) is a bioresorbable polymer for medical use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a safe bioresorbable PCL filler has obtained CE certification in Europe for dermal and subcutaneous injection for wrinkle improvement. PCL, which is the main ingredient, has been approved by the US licensing authority to be used as a material for medical devices and is one of the materials currently attracting attention in the beauty market …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative study of rheological properties and preclinical data of porous polycaprolactone microsphere dermal fillers

Kim¹,

In²,

Park³

et al. 2019

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In this study, a physical properties test and preclinical evaluation were performed on two polycaprolactone (PCL)‐based dermal filler formulas. Objective This study was performed to compare the rheological characteristics, preclinical efficacy, and safety of a new PCL filler, SF‐01, with a licensed PCL filler. Methods First, the viscoelasticity of the PCL filler was evaluated. Next, hairless mice were injected with fillers and evaluated for efficacy with a folliscope and PRIMOSLITE. Histological evaluation was conducted for 6 months to evaluate safety. Results In this evaluation, SF‐01 was superior to a licensed PCL filler in initial volume increase rate and in vivo durability, and the migration of the injected filler was not confirmed. The elasticity (G*, G′) and viscosity (G′′) are also expected to be lower than those of a licensed PCL filler, thereby resulting in less foreign body sensation in the living body. Conclusion SF‐01 (porous PCL microsphere–based dermal filler) has been confirmed to be superior in durability and shape retention compared to the licensed PCL filler (nonporous PCL microsphere–based dermal filler), and the in vivo safety is equivalent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%