Clinical Validation of Superficial Lip Injections Utilizing Cohesive Polydensified Matrix Hyaluronic Acid-Based Soft Tissue Fillers.

BACKGROUND: A combination of optimal injection technique and dermal filler choice is key for improving lip architecture with natural and long-lasting results. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the positioning of Cohesive Polydensified Matrix™ (CPM) hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers after superficial lip injections and document their tissue integration and effects on lip architecture and shape. METHODS: Eligible patients underwent lip contouring and volumization using a superficial direct tissue action technique. All injections were performed with CPM-HA lip fillers using a 30G needle and retrograde microthreading. Total injected volume was 0.8-1.2 mL. High-resolution ultrasound (US) imaging, 3D surface scanning, and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) assessments were performed before, and 1, 3 and 6 months post-injection to define the anatomy, positioning, longevity and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were injected (mean age, 33.2 years). US measurements revealed an increased skin–orbicularis oris muscle distance up to 1 month post-injection after which measurements returned to baseline values. This observation correlated with complete product integration into the surrounding tissue visualized by US at 3 months. An increased dry mucosa thickness (vermilion body) remained at 6 months, and GAIS scores revealed 70% of patients continued to experience visible lip improvements. 3D analyses revealed significantly increased total lip surface area at 3 months with increased Cupid’s bow distance, philtral height, and anterior upper lip projection. CONCLUSION: Superficial injection of CPM-HA fillers offers an effective and safe tool for improving lip architecture and volume. Results showed homogeneous dermal integration of the product and aesthetic outcomes maintained up to 6 months. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(9):940-945. doi:10.36849/JDD.6011.

Calcium Hydroxylapatite (CaHA) and Aesthetic Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Controlled Clinical Trials.

Background: This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the available controlled clinical trials on the effectiveness of calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) in terms of aesthetic outcomes, skin-aging-related outcomes, and patient/investigator satisfaction. Methods: We included controlled clinical trials involving at least 10 human adults that examined the effects of CaHA on aesthetic and skin-aging-related outcomes and satisfaction. Due to the high heterogeneity among the included studies, only a qualitative analysis is provided. Results: Out of 2935 relevant references, 13 studies were included, of which 8 studies focused on facial areas and 5 on dorsum of hand. CaHA injection was associated with enhancements in global aesthetic improvement scale, whether applied in facial regions or on the dorsum of hands. The findings suggested high patients' satisfaction following CaHA when applied to facial areas. Studies highlighted improvements in hand grading scales and a reduction in facial wrinkles. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that CaHA injections improve aesthetic results, including facial areas, such as nasolabial folds and jawline, and hands, with high levels of satisfaction. Considering the methodological limitations and heterogeneous comparisons groups, additional controlled clinical trials would contribute to a better understanding of the applications and advantages offered by CaHA.

The evolving field of regenerative aesthetics.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative aesthetics (RA) is an emerging subfield based on many of the principles of regenerative medicine (RM). In order to ensure that the development of regenerative aesthetics is based on accepted regenerative concepts and to optimize treatment strategies, it is important to establish clear definitions, fundamental aims and consider the impact of the predominant RA tissue environment RM focuses on the regeneration of injured or diseased tissue, while RA aims to restore youthful properties to aging, senescent tissue. The distinction is key in understanding how best to develop treatments for these different goals. AIMS AND METHODS: The current review suggests key concepts, definitions, and foundations of regenerative aesthetic approaches and examines current evidence supporting this. It considers the importance of the aging tissue environment, the essential regenerative goals of restored tissue structure and function and introduces the concept of regenerative scaffolds with a focus on CaHA. Current techniques in the field and promising future directions are also discussed. CONCLUSION: Regenerative aesthetics is an evolving subfield of regenerative medicine. Establishing clear definitions, identifying the challenges of the aging soft tissue environment and re-evaluating current evidence in light of regenerative goals are vital for the continuing evolution of this medical field.