ArticlePolymers2025
Comparative Analysis of Reconstitution and Solubility of Two Poly-L-Lactic Acid Fillers for Medical Applications.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Post-Market Observational Study of Injectable PLLA Microspheres for Facial Rejuvenation.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the reconstitution and solubility characteristics of two injectable poly L-lactic acid (PLLA) formulations, the next-generation injectable PLLA-LASYNPRO™ and a previous-generation PLLA (PLLA-SCA), through in vitro analysis.
methodsThe study, conducted from 20 November to 11 December 2024, involved reconstituting PLLA-LASYNPRO™ in 5 mL saline solution and PLLA-SCA in 8 mL sterile water or saline (as specified in the instructions for use). Reconstitution processes were recorded using a 4K camera, and microscopic and sieve-based analyses were performed at various time points (1-120 min). The study used standardized methods for reconstitution, observation, and sample collection, including a light microscope and micrometric sieves.
resultsPLLA-LASYNPRO™ exhibited rapid, uniform reconstitution, resulting in a homogeneous milky-white solution with no foam formation. In contrast, PLLA-SCA showed a two-phase mixture with foam formation, requiring more vigorous shaking. Over time, PLLA-LASYNPRO™ displayed gradual sedimentation, with no foam, while PLLA-SCA showed a progressive increase in foam volume and sedimentation. Microscopic analysis revealed consistent particle morphology, with PLLA-LASYNPRO™ particles being smaller and homogeneous, and PLLA-SCA exhibiting larger, irregular particles prone to aggregation. Sieve analysis showed that PLLA-LASYNPRO™ produced minimal sediment, whereas PLLA-SCA consistently produced sediment on both 71 µm and 200 µm sieves.
conclusionsPLLA-LASYNPRO™ and PLLA-SCA display distinct reconstitution behaviors, with PLLA-LASYNPRO™ showing more consistent characteristics and fewer issues with foam and sedimentation. These differences may impact clinical applications and require consideration in treatment planning.
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.