Affiliation:
1. Department of Plastic Surgery McGill University Montréal Québec Canada
2. Erevna Innovations Inc Clinical Research Unit Westmount Québec Canada
3. Department of Dermatology Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam The Netherlands
4. Département D'ophtalmologie Université de Montréal Montréal Québec Canada
5. The Aesthetic Clinique South Florida Florida USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the differences in soft tissue filler rheology and how these properties can impact clinical results is a fundamental concepts for any injector. This study aimed to assess the tissue integration characteristics of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers manufactured with different technologies (Non‐Animal Stabilized HA [HA‐N] or Optimal Balance Technology [HA‐O]) using ultra‐high‐frequency ultrasound.MethodsTwelve female participants with mild‐to‐moderate midface volume loss and temporal hollowing were enrolled and treated with HA‐N and/or HA‐O. Participants were seen at five visits (screening/baseline [treatment], and Weeks 1 [optional touch‐up], 4, 6, and 8 [follow‐up visits]). Ultrasound was used to evaluate the degree of product integration.ResultsOn ultrasound, HA‐N presented with distinct borders, minimal tissue integration, and a capacity to displace tissues. Conversely, HA‐O tended to spread horizontally within the same tissue plane and integrated within tissues. The volumizing capacity of the HA‐O fillers was dependent on particle size.ConclusionHA‐N is suited for deep injections in areas such as the upper lateral cheek and under the muscle of the temporal region when a lifting effect is desired; HA‐O is best suited for subcutaneous injections, in areas of dynamic movement or for patients with thin skin; and can be injected subcutaneously or supraperiosteally when a volumizing effect is desired.