ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2023
In Vivo Models for the Study of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Review.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Injectable Human Acellular Adipose Matrix with Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid and Carboxymethyl Cellulose Gels for Soft Tissue Augmentation.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Article
- Risk Factor Analysis for Vascular Occlusions After Dermal Filler Injections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Effects of Poly-L-Lactic Acid Fillers on Inflammatory Response and Collagen Synthesis in Different Animal Models.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Letter on In Vivo Models for the Study of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) filler application is one of the most frequent minimally invasive aesthetic procedures used worldwide. Its properties and characterization, performance, effects in other tissues, and response to complication treatments have been studied in several animal models. This review aims to categorize animal models considering the advantages and disadvantages regarding the purpose of the study.
methodsLiterature research was made using MEDLINE via PubMed by two reviewers using keywords "hyaluronic acid" "filler" and "animal model". Full-text articles published in English and with an in vivo animal model were included for data extraction.
resultsThe rat model was the most common animal used to evaluate properties or characteristics and degradation of HA fillers. Rabbits were preferred for evaluating HA embolism treatments; however, anatomical names of the arteries differ in some studies. Mice and rats used as vascular occlusion model are challenging due to the size of the vessels and viscosity of the filler.
conclusionThere is a wide variability of options of in vivo animal models to evaluate HA fillers. The animal characteristics, laboratory resources, and HA properties should be considered in accordance with the objective of the study, when choosing the ideal model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.