ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative in-vitro degradation of hyaluronic acids exposed to different hyaluronidase enzymes.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardized Non-surgical Rhinoplasty with Hyaluronic Acid: Consistent Outcomes Across Injectors with Varying Experience.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Degradability of Hyaluronic Acid by Ovine and Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Pure Hyaluronic Acid to the Hyaluronic Acid-Calcium Hydroxylapatite Combination for Temporal Volumization.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the in-vitro behavior of four Hyaluronic acid (HA) gels when exposed to two different hyaluronidase (HSE) formulations. Methods: Four commercially available HA were used: Lyft (Lt; Restylane, Galderma, Sweden), Voluma (Vol; Allergan, AbbVie, USA), UltraDeep (UDe; Rennova, Innovapharma, Brazil), and Subskin (Skn; Perfectha, Sinclair, France). The gels were divided into two groups, with seven aliquots (0.1 mL per aliquot) for each group deposited on a glass plate. A millimeter ruler was positioned behind the plate to measure the gel height. Each aliquot received 100 UTR of one of two HSE formulations. After 2 min, each aliquot was mixed using a 22G needle and left to sit for additional 2 min. Results: Partial and final degradation of the products were obtained through photographic analysis. The final percentage of degradation exhibited significant differences among HA gels (P < 0.001). The results revealed higher degradation in Lt, moderate degradation in UDe, and lower degradation in Vol and Skn. Comparisons of HSE formulations showed no significant differences among them (P = 0.881). Moreover, there was a noticeable degradation after mixing (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, it can be suggested that Lt exhibits the higher degradation among the experimented gels. Furthermore, differences among HSE formulations do not appear to significantly impact HA degradation, while the mixing movement of HSE and HA seems to influence the degradation rate. These findings may help guide clinical decisions regarding the use of hyaluronidase in managing HA filler complications or adjustments.
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.