Derma filler suspended in carboxymethylcellulose creates longest-lasting improvement
Key takeaways:
- Two calcium hydroxyapatite-based derma fillers were compared.
- Filler suspended in carboxymethylcellulose induced longer-lasting collagen than filler crosslinked with 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl/hyaluronic acid.
The physicochemical characteristics of calcium hydroxyapatite-based dermal fillers may determine the induction of collagen that will bring the longest-lasting results, according to a study.
“Advancement in aesthetic research and technology has resulted in development of numerous cosmetic products, including dermal fillers used for soft-tissue augmentation,” Cleiton Kunzler, PhD, of the R&D filler and medical device development department at Merz Aesthetics GmbH in Germany, and colleagues wrote. “Such fillers provide physicians and patients ample options for various noninvasive aesthetic treatments.”
Many derma fillers contain calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), a mineral compound that activates collagen, elastin formation and angiogenesis for volume-loss correction.
In this study, the authors compared the physicochemical make-ups of two different CaHA-based fillers — one suspended in carboxymethylcellulose (CaHA/CMC) and one crosslinked with 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether to hyaluronic acid (CaHA/HA) — to determine which derma filler stimulates in vitro collagen the best.
The fillers were then compared to a control comprised of collagen I and III expression in normal human dermal fibroblast that was incubated with no CaHA microspheres.
Results showed that while both formulations have a similar composition, the physicochemical characteristics were more favorable for CaHA/CMC than CaHA/HA.
Both fillers induced collagen III expression, however, only CaHA/CMC induced collagen I, which is characterized as a longer-lasting collagen. After leaving microspheres of each filler in incubation for 7 days, the 2 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL of CaHA/CMC showed increased collagen 1 expression by 123% (P = .007) and 164% (P < .0001), respectively, compared with control, whereas the CaHA/HA sample’s collagen 1 expression vs. control decreased to 99% and increased to 116%, which the authors said showed no statistical difference.
Compared with CaHA/HA, CaHA/CMC also showed an increase in collagen I expression for 2 mg/mL (P = .0052) and 5 mg/mL (P < .0001) at equivalent CaHA microsphere concentrations.
The CaHA/CMC also had higher G’ (P < .001), a feature that makes the compound more resistant to outside forces and provides better results at a lower injection volume, than CaHA/HA, as well as lower extrusion force (P = .0003).
“Characterization of two CaHA-based dermal fillers indicate that the CaHA/CMC filler has a higher volumizing and lifting capacity,” the authors wrote, explaining that CaHA/CMC may ultimately allow for long lasting aesthetic improvement.