Recommendations for volume augmentation and rejuvenation of the face and hands with the new generation polycaprolactone-based collagen stimulator (Ellans&amp;eacute;&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt;)

Melo, Francisco de Assis Dutra; Nicolau, Pierre; Piovano, Luca; Lin, Shang-Li; Baptista-Fernandes, Tiago; King, Martyn; Camporese, Alessandra; Hong, Kyungkook; Khattar, Maria M; Christen, Marie‐Odile

doi:10.2147/ccid.s145195

Cited by 81 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…61 Ellansé (Sinclair Pharma Ltd.) is a collagen biostimulator composed of polycaprolactone filler based material used over several regions of the body including the temporal region. 62 This material has successful outcomes in nasolabial fold injections. 63 The injection should be placed between the superficial temporal fascia and the superficial layer of the deep temporal fascia using a 22 or 25G blunt cannula, fanning from the posterior limit to the orbital rim and zygomatic arch.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal Augmentation: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinicians employ various modalities in order to achieve temporal augmentation; however, no literature comprehensively describes these methods or provides perspective on available options. Understanding the available methodologies for cosmetic temporal augmentation allows for improved patient satisfaction with limited risk of complications. To synthesize the available literature on cosmetic temporal augmentation, including all available methodologies, patient satisfaction data, and complication rates, as well as to identify gaps in the available literature to encourage further research. A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Using the key terms “temporal” or “temple” and “augmentation” or “rejuvenation,” all article formats presenting primary literature data involving cosmetic temporal augmentation were included. Articles not presenting patient data or not discussing cosmetic indications were eliminated. A total of 12 articles were deemed appropriate for analysis. Of the 12 articles included, 6 (50%) evaluated filler techniques, 3 discussed fat grafting (25%), and 3 reviewed solid implant (25%) techniques. Eight (67%) of these were retrospective reviews, with the remaining being prospective trials (33%). All studies found high patient satisfaction rates and a small number of complications with their respective methodology. Several methods are employed for cosmetic temporal augmentation, including various types of injectable fillers, solid implants, and fat grafting, with all reporting successful satisfaction and complication outcomes. Further research is necessary to properly compare these modalities. Clinician discretion should guide procedural choice until future well-controlled studies are able to provide standardized outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Although research describes its use in the temporal region, there are very little existing data for this purpose. 62 This material is currently not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, given its success, it warrants an examination for various facial cosmetic purposes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Augmentation: A Systematic Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PDO can be used for volume augmentation in the nasolabial fold, chin, jawline, and buccal hollows. It should not be used in the eyelid or lip owing to the lack of subcutaneous fat in such places, similar to other biostimulatory fillers . PDO filler should be injected into the dermal‐subcutaneous junction or preperiosteal tissues with care being taken to avoid high‐pressure gradients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biostimulatory effects of polydioxanone, poly‐d, l lactic acid, and polycaprolactone fillers in mouse model

Kwon

Han

Yeo

et al. 2019

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Numerous fillers are increasingly used for augmentation of volume loss and relaxation of facial wrinkles. Collagen stimulators are the latest next‐generation dermal fillers that can induce neocollagenesis. To investigate biophysical characteristics, safety, and efficacy of newly developed polydioxanone (PDO) filler in comparison with poly‐l lactic acid (PLLA) and polycaprolactone (PCL) fillers. Methods In vitro assay, morphology of particles, and rheological property of fillers were measured. A total of 24 female hairless mice (SKH1‐Hrhr) were randomly divided into three groups and injected with PDO, PLLA, or PCL fillers. Durability of fillers was assessed at 0, 3 days, and 1, 4, 8, 12 weeks after injection using folliscope and PRIMOS. To determine biocompatibility and neocollagenesis, histologic evaluation was performed at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after injection. Efficacy was also evaluated based on skin surface roughness changes using PRIMOS in a hairless mouse photoaging model. Results In the particle morphology test, PDO microspheres had an irregular surface and were spherical and uniformly sized. PDO filler demonstrated similar neocollagenesis and inflammatory response to other collagen stimulators. PDO filler showed better biodegradability than PLLA and PCL fillers. In the hairless mouse photoaging model, there was a statistically significant decrease in skin surface roughness after PDO filler injection. Conclusions Our data suggest that newly developed collagen stimulating PDO filler might be a safe and effective option for correction of volume loss and rejuvenation of photoaging skin.

show abstract

“…Adverse effects, such as xanthelasma-like lesions when injected under the eyes are very rare (De Melo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Soft Tissue Fillersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse effects of fillers

Haneke

2018

Dermatologic Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Filler injections belong to the most frequently performed noninvasive beautifying procedures. When done correctly they are generally well tolerated. However, a number of factors, such as poor filler quality, and particularly host as well as user dependent filler reactions may lead to unwanted effects. These may be early, late, or delayed events with characteristics for each of them. Temporary fillers almost invariably cause temporary side effects whereas those of permanent fillers may last forever. Some fillers are notorious for their poor safety profile; for example, silicone is banned in the European Union and the United States but nevertheless used by many practitioners and beauticians. Many fillers can be identified in histopathologic sections allowing specific measures to be instituted.

show abstract

Recommendations for volume augmentation and rejuvenation of the face and hands with the new generation polycaprolactone-based collagen stimulator (Ellansé<sup>®</sup>)

Cited by 81 publications

References 39 publications

Temporal Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Temporal Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Biostimulatory effects of polydioxanone, poly‐d, l lactic acid, and polycaprolactone fillers in mouse model

Adverse effects of fillers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About