Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Different Dilutions of Mesobotox in Facial Rejuvenation: Which is Better?
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMicrobotulinum toxin A treatment is a technique of delivering multiple intradermal injections of diluted botulinum toxin type A into the dermis or the interface between the dermis and the superficial layer of the facial muscles to preserve the facial mobility. The current study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effect of different dilutions of microbotulinum toxin A in periorbital and mid-facial rejuvenation.
methodsThis randomized prospective interventional study included 30 female patients with different types of wrinkles in periorbital and/or mid-face. Patients were divided into three groups: group I (10 patients): 100U botulinum toxin in 5 ml saline, group II (10 patients): 100U botulinum toxin in 7 ml saline and group III (10 patients): 100U botulinum toxin in 10 ml saline.
resultsA statistically significant better global esthetic improvement scale (GAIS) scores after 1 month were observed in group I compared to groups II and III. Also, after 6 months better GAIS scores were observed in group I compared to group II and in group II compared to group III. Assessment of different esthetic parameters measured by the Antera 3D camera revealed a statistically significant improvement in all parameters (periorbital and mid-face) in group I and in most of parameters (periorbital and mid-face) in groups II and III with more evident improvement after 1 month compared to after 6 months.
conclusionIntradermal microbotulinum toxin A is a cost-effective method for improving periorbital and mid-face wrinkles with a better effect of 1:5 than 1:7 and 1:10 dilutions. Facial wrinkles possess a great burden on patients' psychological status, and the emergence of novel rejuvenation technique with minimal side effects is necessary. MicroBoNT-A usage in the literature was through variety of dilutions and concentrations. Therefore, a conclusive and comparative study was essential to compare the effect of different microBoNT-A dilutions. In this context, the current study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effect of different dilutions of microBoNT-A in periorbital and mid-facial rejuvenation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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.