ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Long-term Efficacy and Safety of a Hyaluronic Acid-Based Dermal Filler With Tri-Hyal Technology to Enhance Lip Volume.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interventions to enhance lip volume and shape are common aesthetic procedures to counter signs of aging. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Art Filler Lips (AFL), with or without retouching, at restoring lip shape and volume, tolerability, and persistence over 18 months. Methods: During this open-label study, AFL (≤2.0 mL) was injected into the upper, lower, and/or both red lips and borders at baseline (D0). Patients were evaluated at D21, when, if necessary, retouching was performed. Patients were evaluated at D42, D90, D180, D270, D360, D450, and D540. The primary assessment was based on evaluation at D21 using the Medicis Lip Fullness Scale (MLFS). Satisfactory volume restoration was defined as an improvement of ≥1 point vs D0. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), and investigator and patient satisfaction rates based on Global Aesthetic Improvement Scores. Results: Among 73 patients (97% females; 54.4 ± 10.5 years), 56% of lips were injected without any retouch. Mean MLFS scores either for upper and lower lips separately or together, significantly improved by D21 for the patients without retouching or D42 for those with (all Conclusions: AFL is well tolerated and produces a sustained objective and subjective lip volume restoration and shape. Level of Evidence 4 Risk:
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.