Novel Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler: Dermal Gel Extra Physical Properties and Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

DGE is a firm HA gel that required significantly less volume and fewer touch-ups to provide equivalent efficacy to NASHA for NLF correction; both dermal gels were well tolerated. DGE will provide a comfortable and cost-effective dermal filler option for clinicians and patients.

Rheologic and Physicochemical Properties Used to Differentiate Injectable Hyaluronic Acid Filler Products

“… 9 , 31 – 36 As clinical data are still lacking, author discussions that share the clinical experiences of experts in the field are necessary to bridge the knowledge gap between product properties and understanding a product’s potential range of uses in vivo. 31 , 32 , 37 , 38…”

Global Aesthetics Consensus: Hyaluronic Acid Fillers and Botulinum Toxin Type A—Recommendations for Combined Treatment and Optimizing Outcomes in Diverse Patient Populations

“…57 Two controlled, split-face studies of Evidence Level II fulfill the rheologic prediction that optimal nasolabial fold correction requires a significantly smaller volume of a higher than a lower elasticity filler. 62,63 Histopathologic and ultrasonographic studies directly correlate a filler’s viscosity and cohesivity to its pattern of spread and tissue integration after in vivo, intradermal implantation. 64–66 …”

Efficacy, Safety, and Patient Satisfaction of a Monophasic Cohesive Polydensified Matrix Versus a Biphasic Nonanimal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid Filler After Single Injection in Nasolabial Folds

“…Stabilization of the HA molecule is achieved using chemical HA cross‐linking techniques. The cross‐linking process transforms un‐cross‐linked HA polymers into a cross‐linked gel to produce a viscoelastic material with resistance to enzymatic and free radical degradation and longevity without compromising its biocompatibility . Monophasic and biphasic HA fillers are produced using this cross‐linking method.…”

“…7 A variety of HA-based fillers have been approved for the treatment of exaggerated NLF, 8,9 but their different effects on skin physiology and their longevity need to be further evaluated. Although the aesthetic and dermatologic benefits of biphasic NASHA for treatment of NLF have been assessed extensively, 4,8,[10][11][12][13][14] only a few studies have been published reporting on the efficacy and tolerability of monophasic CPMHA in the treatment of NLFs. [15][16][17][18] The aim of the present prospective, randomized, double-blind, 12-month half-side comparison was to compare the effects of a CPMHA filler with those of NASHA on wrinkle severity, skin structure, and patient satisfaction.…”