A Randomized Clinical Trial of Comparing Monophasic Monodensified and Biphasic Nonanimal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers in Treatment of Asian Nasolabial Folds

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


BACKGROUNDCross-linked hyaluronic acids (HAs) with varying characteristics and formulations are available. Despite the popularity of HA, limited studies compared the effectiveness of monophasic monodensified hyaluronic acid (MMHA) and biphasic nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (BHA) products in correcting nasolabial folds (NLFs) in the Asian population.OBJECTIVEThis double-blinded, randomized research aimed at evaluating the outcomes of MMHA and BHA products in treating Asian NLFs.MATERIALS AND METHODSSubjects aged between 18 and 65 years with moderate-to-severe NLFs were randomized to receive MMHA or BHA treatment. A touch-up treatment with the same product was performed at the 4-week follow-up, if needed. The effectiveness was evaluated for 24 weeks by masked investigators. All adverse events were recorded for safety evaluation.RESULTSTwenty-five subjects in the MMHA Group and twenty-four subjects in the BHA Group finished 24-week follow-up. Results showed that subjects from both groups obtained satisfactory outcome in NLF correction. A lower amount of MMHA was required to achieve a similar result as that of BHA (p < .01). Both HA products maintained the effectiveness at the end of the 24-week follow-up.CONCLUSIONBoth MMHA and BHA are effective for correcting NLF in Asian patients, producing satisfactory results. Monophasic monodensified hyaluronic acid provides similar satisfaction to BHA while requiring less injection volume.

    loading  Loading Related Articles