ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparative 3D Analysis of Lip Rejuvenation: Investigating Effects Before and After Soft-Tissue Filler Compared with Controls.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety and Efficacy of a New Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Lip Augmentation: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate changes in lip metrics before and after facial rejuvenation treatment with hyaluronic acid-based fillers and to compare them with those of a control group using stereophotogrammetry (3D). METHODOLOGY: This study included 63 Caucasian women divided into Group C (<30 years, n=30) and Group H (>30 years, n=33), which was further divided into before (HT0) and after (HT1) lip augmentation with hyaluronic acid (HA). Eleven anthropometric landmarks were identified for linear, angular, and surface area measurements. Three photos were captured in Group C, while Group H had photos taken at T0 and T1. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk test to evaluate normality, the Kruskal-Wallis test and one-way ANOVA. Tukey's post hoc and pairwise comparison tests were performed to analyze differences between variables (P value < 0.05).
resultsThere were significant differences between lip width (ChR-ChL) and philtrum width (CphR-CphL) (P<.001). The total heights of the upper (Ls-Li) and lower vermilion lips (Sto-Li) increased, and the heights of the upper (Sn-Ls) and lower (Li-Sl) cutaneous lips decreased. The angles related to the philtrum (ChR-CphR-Ls, P<.001; ChL-CphL-Ls, P<.001) and nasolabial angle (Prn-Sn-Ls) (P<.001) exhibited significant differences. The surface areas of the upper, lower, and total vermilion lip showed significant differences (P<.001). Tukey's test indicated no significant differences in surface area after lip augmentation between the HT1 and C groups.
conclusionAnalysis of lip morphology after a filler procedure revealed a reversal of age-related changes, with increases in vermilion lip height and surface area comparable to those of younger individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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
39313661What 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.