SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Synthetic Dermal Fillers in Treating Acne Scars: A Comparative Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regenerative Functional Microspheres for Aesthetic Medicine: Mechanism, Materials, Fabrication, and Clinical Applications.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of autologous cell-based therapies for atrophic acne scar treatment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with in-depth methodological and clinical insights.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Comparative Effects of Injectable Biostimulatory Agents (Calcium Hydroxyapatite, New Cellular Treatment Factor, VAMP, and Human Exosomes) and Their Combination on Skin Regeneration.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Injectable Fillers for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms, Evidence, and Clinical Algorithms.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- Hybrid Cooperative Complexes of Low- and High-Molecular-Weight Hyaluronic Acid in Aesthetic Medicine.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Dual-plane Product Technique for Earlobe Rejuvenation: Apriline Hyaluronic Acid Filler and Apriline Skin Booster Injection.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Advances in Anti-aging Procedures: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical and Non-surgical Rejuvenation Techniques.Cureus · 2025Review
- Comparison Combination of Autologous Fibroblast Cells Plus Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) With PRP Alone in Treatment of Atrophic Acne Scars, a Split-Face Pilot Study With Biometric Assessment.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcne is a common condition observed in adolescents and in most severe acne the scars develop. There are numerous treatment options for acne scars. However, no standardized guidelines have been established to guide physicians in the optimal treatment of acne scars.
aimsThe objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the existing evidence on various fillers used for the treatment of acne scars and to compare their effectiveness with one another.
methodsThe study was designed following PRISMA guidelines, and the information was retrieved in May 2024 using the PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The inclusion criteria were that studies involving patients of any age or gender with acne scars of any type treated with synthetic dermal fillers, and studies published in English. The exclusion criteria were studies with less than 10 participants and studies that did not use synthetic dermal fillers. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool was used for randomized controlled trials, and in observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used.
resultsTwenty-six studies were included with a total of 1121 participants. Fourteen studies evaluated HA on 372 subjects, five studies focused on PMMA on 305 subjects, four on CaHA on 392 subjects, two on PLLA on 42 subjects, and one on PCL on 10 subjects.
conclusionsMost of the studies included in this review were of low quality, as indicated by their scores on quality assessments, lack of high-quality RCTs, and small sample sizes. Future research should focus on conducting randomized, controlled, split-face studies with an adequate number of participants and a detailed examination of different scar subtypes.
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.