ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and Performance of RHA4 in the Midface Using the Multilayering Technique: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- Poly-lactic Acid Dermal Filler Enriched With InCubeIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Effects of a Greek Yoghurt-based Complex on the Human Facial Skin Microbiome.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo overcome the natural visual consequences of the physiological aging process, the use of biodegradable fillers made of hyaluronic acid or sodium carboxymethyl cellulose is increasingly popular in modern esthetic medicine. Clinicians can choose from a wide range of fillers with variable compositions and rheological properties, and therefore with different application areas and injection depths. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the most commonly used fillers for facial augmentation regarding their in vitro biocompatibility and to find potential correlations to their rheological properties. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the present study, direct and indirect in vitro cytotoxicity analysis according to DIN EN ISO 10993-5 were performed on 39 different filler materials for facial augmentation.
resultsAll fillers analyzed in this study overall showed satisfactory results in the direct and indirect cytocompatibility tests. While no material was outside the threshold values in the 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulphenyl)-(2H)-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) cell viability and bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) cell proliferation assays or in the live-dead staining, only 7 out of the 39 fillers reached the required values in the lactate dehydrogenase assay.
conclusionAll biodegradable fillers examined in this study were found to be sufficiently cytocompatible. Although the qualitative analysis of the test results showed differences between the fillers, no concrete correlation between test performance and composition or manufacturer of the fillers was found. Future efforts are required to provide clinicians with even better support in choosing the right filler for optimal outcome and patient satisfaction.
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.