We have located open access text paper links.
Efficacy of a New Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler on Nasolabial Folds Correction: A Prospective, Comparative, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.
Dermatologic Surgery : Official Publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et Al.] 2024 May 8
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the cornerstones of wrinkle correction and facial contour redefinition.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of ESTLF compared with RESL for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, split-face, randomized, investigator and subject-blinded trial, 45 subjects with moderate-to-severe symmetrical NLFs were randomized to ESTLF on one side of the face and RESL on the other side and were followed up for 9 months. The primary end point was change in WSRS score from the baseline to Month 1 (M1). Secondary end points included changes in WSRS score at other time points, aesthetic improvement, wrinkle volume quantification, adverse events, and local tolerance.
RESULTS: The efficacy difference between ESTLF and RESL at M1 was in favor of ESTLF (-0.16, CI, -0.28 to -0.03]), demonstrating its noninferiority. Considering other time points, significant differences were observed at 3 and 6 months for ESTLF, assessed with WSRS, GAIS, or NLF volume quantification. Both treatments were well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: ESTLF is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of NLFs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of ESTLF compared with RESL for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, split-face, randomized, investigator and subject-blinded trial, 45 subjects with moderate-to-severe symmetrical NLFs were randomized to ESTLF on one side of the face and RESL on the other side and were followed up for 9 months. The primary end point was change in WSRS score from the baseline to Month 1 (M1). Secondary end points included changes in WSRS score at other time points, aesthetic improvement, wrinkle volume quantification, adverse events, and local tolerance.
RESULTS: The efficacy difference between ESTLF and RESL at M1 was in favor of ESTLF (-0.16, CI, -0.28 to -0.03]), demonstrating its noninferiority. Considering other time points, significant differences were observed at 3 and 6 months for ESTLF, assessed with WSRS, GAIS, or NLF volume quantification. Both treatments were well tolerated.
CONCLUSION: ESTLF is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of NLFs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Hemodynamic Support in Sepsis.Anesthesiology 2024 June 2
The New Challenge of Obesity - Obesity-Associated Nephropathy.Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity 2024
Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in Therapy 2024 May 15
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app