ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2017
Cohesive Polydensified Matrix
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Durability of Hyaluronic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers for Facial Application: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The Assessment, Strategy, and Treatment Protocol: Nasolabial Fold Assessment, Strategy, and Treatment With Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Chinese Patients.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Universal Lip Integrity, Proportion, and Structure: A Framework for Achieving Consistent, Natural-Looking Lip Augmentation Using Hyaluronic Acid Fillers.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCohesive Polydensified Matrix PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this open-label, prospective, postmarketing noninterventional study, 18 adult patients seeking esthetic enhancement of the lateral cheek hollows and cheekbone area were injected with CPM-HA volumizer integrated with lidocaine (CPM-HA-VL) in the upper or lower cheek area. Safety and performance of CPM-HA-VL up to 12 months after injection with follow-up visits at week 4 and month 3, 6, and 12 were assessed. The primary endpoint was improvement of cheek fullness on the validated Merz Aesthetics Scales. Additionally, changes in nasolabial folds were quantified using a phaseshift rapid in vivo measurement of skin optical three-dimensional (3D) in vivo measurement device.
resultsPatients (94.4% female, median age 52 years, age range 39-69 years) were injected with a mean volume of 2.5±1.1 mL CPM-HA-VL per side. Immediately after injection, mean severity for upper and lower cheek fullness assessed on the validated MAS improved from 2.5±0.6 and 2.8±0.5, respectively, to 1.0±0.0, and remained unchanged through month 12. Improvement in relation to baseline was attested on the Global Aesthetics Improvement Scale for all assessments. Compared with baseline, the following assessments offered a statistical significance in the reduction of wrinkle depth of nasolabial folds (maximum depth reduction by 30.4% at 3 months) according to optical 3D in vivo measurements. Pain during injection was minimal and abated within 30 minutes. Treatment was well tolerated and led to great patient satisfaction.
conclusionCPM-HA-VL injected into the upper and lower cheeks led to long-lasting satisfactory cosmetic results in cheek augmentation as well as in reducing depth of nasolabial folds adjacent to the injection site.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.