Biphasic facial filler more durable than monophasic fillers
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Biphasic and monophasic monodensified fillers offer greater intradermal durability than monophasic polydensified filler, according to study results published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
Twenty-four female patients participated in the prospective clinical trial between December 2011 and January 2014. Mean patient age was 53 years (range, 46-60 years).
Each patient was injected with three applications of 0.2 mL of a biphasic filler (Perfectha Derm, ObvieLine, Dardilly, France), a monophasic monodensified filler (Teosyal Global Action, Teoxane, Paris, France) and a monophasic polydensified filler (Esthelis Basic, Anteis, Loney, Switzerland). The hyaluronic acid fillers were injected at a depth of 0.7 mm, into the middle dermis, using needles of the same length and gauge.
A small cylinder of skin was removed from each of the patients 2 days, 92 days and 182 days after the injection. These were prepared for histology and reviewed by a surgeon and dermatologist for the presence or absence of hyaluronic acid islets.
The presence of all three products was verified at day 2 for all 24 patients. At 92 days, the biphasic filler was present in 22 patients, the monophasic monodensified filler was present in 20 patients, and the monophasic polydensified was present in 16 patients. At 182 days, the biphasic filler was present in 21 patients, the monophasic monodensified filler was present in 18 patients, and the monophasic polydensified was present in nine patients.
The biphasic filler did not show a significant decrease over the three follow-up dates. The monophasic monodensified filler did decrease at the 92-day follow-up (P = .0455), but did not change between day 92 and 182. The monophasic polydensified filler exhibited a progressive reduction between day 2 and 92 (P = .0047) to the end of the study at day 182 (P = .0001). – by Talitha Bennett
Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.