Comparison of 2.5% agarose gel vs hyaluronic acid filler, for the correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] Agarose gel filler is a natural hydrocolloid with a three-dimensional structure similar to the extracellular matrix, with gel formed by hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions rather than through chemical cross-linking or polymerization.
[OBJECTIVE] To determine efficacy and safety of 2.5% agarose gel filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.
[METHODS] In this split-face study, efficacy, safety, and usability of 2.5% agarose gel were compared to those of NASHA-L. Assessments included the nasolabial fold (NLF) Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS [blinded investigator]), subject satisfaction, safety (adverse events), and usability.
[RESULTS] Sixty-six subjects were treated, and 46/66 (66.7%) were available for evaluation at 3 months, when mean change in WSRS was identical for both products (-1.1 ± 0.4 for 2.5% agarose; -1.1 ± 0.4 for NASHA-L). Scores for each product remained similar across all time points and began to return to baseline between 7 and 8 months. GAIS score followed a similar pattern, rising between months 7 and 8 (2.7 ± 0.6 for 2.5% agarose at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8 and 2.7 ± 0.6 for NASHA-L at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8). Ultrasound confirmed the longevity of both fillers between 7 and 8 months. All adverse events were transient in nature and resolved within 15 days. Most events were mild in nature, and the number of events was similar between the two fillers.
[CONCLUSION] Treatment with 2.5% agarose gel resulted in improvement that persisted for between 7 and 8 months. The treatment effect was equivalent to NASHA-L.
[OBJECTIVE] To determine efficacy and safety of 2.5% agarose gel filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.
[METHODS] In this split-face study, efficacy, safety, and usability of 2.5% agarose gel were compared to those of NASHA-L. Assessments included the nasolabial fold (NLF) Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS [blinded investigator]), subject satisfaction, safety (adverse events), and usability.
[RESULTS] Sixty-six subjects were treated, and 46/66 (66.7%) were available for evaluation at 3 months, when mean change in WSRS was identical for both products (-1.1 ± 0.4 for 2.5% agarose; -1.1 ± 0.4 for NASHA-L). Scores for each product remained similar across all time points and began to return to baseline between 7 and 8 months. GAIS score followed a similar pattern, rising between months 7 and 8 (2.7 ± 0.6 for 2.5% agarose at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8 and 2.7 ± 0.6 for NASHA-L at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8). Ultrasound confirmed the longevity of both fillers between 7 and 8 months. All adverse events were transient in nature and resolved within 15 days. Most events were mild in nature, and the number of events was similar between the two fillers.
[CONCLUSION] Treatment with 2.5% agarose gel resulted in improvement that persisted for between 7 and 8 months. The treatment effect was equivalent to NASHA-L.
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 시술 | filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 2 | |
| 시술 | hyaluronic acid filler
|
필러 주입술 | dict | 1 | |
| 재료 | hyaluronic acid
|
히알루론산 | dict | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Nasolabial Fold; Sepharose; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome
📑 인용 관계
🔗 함께 등장하는 도메인
이 논문이 속한 카테고리와 같은 논문에서 자주 함께 다뤄지는 카테고리들
관련 논문
- Penetrating globe injury following periocular hyaluronic acid filler injection: A case report.
- Choroidal ischemia after self-injection of hyaluronic acid filler.
- Intra-articular therapies for synovial joint dysfunction: a comprehensive integrative review.
- Clinical safety of a low-modification hyaluronic acid filler (MoD 2%) for facial rejuvenation.
- A Fibrous-Porous Microsphere-Based Composite Filler for Synchronized Immediate and Long-Term Soft Tissue Restoration.