ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Clinical Evaluation of an Innovative CaHA Bio-Stimulator in Facial Rejuvenation: 1 Year Follow-Up.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Ultrasound imaging in aesthetic medicine: safety and precision in injectable procedures.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Review
- Mossy-textured hydroxyapatite-modified poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres promote collagen regeneration via calcium/TGF-β and chemokine signaling pathways in soft tissue augmentation.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkin aging is characterized by wrinkles, loss of elasticity, laxity, and rough texture, resulting from degenerative changes in the skin's layers. Effective treatments targeting skin structure are increasingly sought after in aesthetic medicine.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of STIIM, a novel calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA)-based bio-stimulator, in facial rejuvenation. PATIENTS/
methodsThirty-two patients aged 35-59 received diluted CaHA injections. Outcomes were assessed through patient satisfaction surveys and objective measurements, including ultrasound evaluation of dermal thickness. Follow-ups were conducted at 120 and 360 days post-procedure. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events.
resultsAt 120 days post-treatment, 85% of patients reported visible aesthetic improvements, and ultrasound assessments in a subset of patients demonstrated a significant 51% increase in dermal thickness, indicating improved skin structure. At 360 days, 75% of the patients continued to report aesthetic benefits, confirming the durability of the results. The treatment was well-tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported throughout the study period.
conclusionsThis novel CaHA-based bio-stimulator demonstrates a safe and effective profile for facial rejuvenation, providing significant aesthetic and structural improvements with long-lasting results. It offers a promising option for addressing the challenges of skin aging.
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.