A Randomized, Blinded, Prospective Clinical Study Comparing Small-Particle Versus Cohesive Polydensified Matrix Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for the Treatment of Perioral Rhytids.

[BACKGROUND] Perioral rhytids are a bothersome sign of aging for many patients. Although multiple treatments exist, choosing an optimal modality may be difficult considering that rhytids in this region are fine and the anatomy dynamic.

[OBJECTIVES] The authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety as well as patient satisfaction of a small-particle hyaluronic acid filler with 0.3% lidocaine (SP-HAL, Restylane Silk) and cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid filler (CPM-HA, Belotero Balance) in reducing superficial perioral rhytids.

[METHODS] The study was double-blinded, and 48 patients with moderate to severe superficial perioral rhytids were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either CPM-HA in the left perioral region and SPHAL in the right or vice versa. Rhytid severity was measured by patients utilizing a linear analog scale, and by investigators utilizing a validated 5-point scale, for 180 days following treatment.

[RESULTS] Both SP-HAL and CPM-HA achieved a reduction in rhytid severity, and neither treatment group returned to baseline after 180 days. Investigator-reported scores for rhytid severity were significantly better for SP-HAL than CPM-HA and remained so at 180 days (P < .05). SP-HAL also proved significantly better for reducing rhytids according to patient scores, although this difference occurred between 120 and 180 days only. Adverse events included rash and mild acne for CPM-HA, and SP-HAL was associated with 1 postinflammatory nodule and 2 occurrences of Tyndall effect.

[CONCLUSIONS] Although both SP-HAL and CPM-HA are effective at reducing perioral rhytid severity and have similar safety profiles, SP-HAL possesses a longer duration of effect.