Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27660479›Full record

ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2016

Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review.

Adri D Prasetyo, Welf Prager, Mark G Rubin, Ernesto A Moretti, Andreas Nikolis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Conditions to Consider When Choosing Fillers.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Connections between cohesion and properties that related to safety and effectiveness of the hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: A comparative study of the cohesive and non-cohesive gels.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Adri D PrasetyoRejuva Skin & Beauty, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Welf PragerPrager & Partner, Hamburg, Germany.
Mark G RubinUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ernesto A MorettiGamma Health Group, Sanatorio Los Arroyos, Santa Fe, Republic of Argentina.
Andreas NikolisVictoria Park Clinical Research Centre, Westmount, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCohesive monophasic polydensified fillers show unique viscoelastic properties and variable density of hyaluronic acid, allowing for a homogeneous tissue integration and distribution of the material.

objectiveThe aim of this paper was to review the clinical data regarding the performance, tolerability, and safety of the Belotero(®) fillers for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation.

methodsA literature search was performed up until May 31, 2015 to identify all relevant articles on Belotero(®) fillers (Basic/Balance, Hydro, Soft, Intense, Volume) and equivalent products (Esthélis(®), Mesolis(®), Fortélis(®), Modélis(®)).

resultsThis comprehensive review included 26 papers. Findings from three randomized controlled trials showed a greater reduction in nasolabial fold severity with Belotero(®) Basic/Balance than with collagen (at 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks, n=118) and Restylane(®) (at 4 weeks, n=40), and higher patient satisfaction with Belotero(®) Intense than with Perlane(®) (at 2 weeks, n=20). With Belotero(®) Basic/Balance, an improvement of at least 1 point on the severity scale can be expected in ~80% of patients 1-6 months after injection, with an effect still visible at 8-12 months. Positive findings were also reported with Belotero(®) Volume (no reduction in hyaluronic acid volume at 12 months, as demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging), Soft (improvement in the esthetic outcomes when used in a sequential approach), and Hydro (improvement in skin appearance in all patients). The most common adverse effects were mild-to-moderate erythema, edema, and hematoma, most of which were temporary. There were no reports of Tyndall effect, nodules, granulomas, or tissue necrosis.

conclusionClinical evidence indicates sustainable esthetic effects, good safety profile, and long-term tolerability of the Belotero(®) fillers, particularly Belotero(®) Basic/Balance and Intense.

Indexed as

CPM®dermal fillerfacial linesfillingnasolabial foldwrinkle

Identifiers

PMID27660479
PMCPMC5021061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.