Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2025
Effectiveness and Safety of RHA3 vs a Comparator Product for Lip Augmentation: A Randomized, Controlled, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLip augmentation using dermal fillers is increasingly popular, but often requires large volumes and regular touch-ups, whereas poor techniques and product selection can result in unnatural-looking lips. The RHA collection was designed to have less rigidity, allowing the products to adapt to facial animation. In particular, RHA3 has been approved in Europe for lip volumization.
objectivesThe authors of this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RHA3 vs an active comparator for lip augmentation in the US population.
methodsThis was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, multicenter clinical study. The primary endpoint aimed to demonstrate the noninferiority of RHA3 vs the comparator using the Teoxane Lip Fullness Scale (TLFS), assessed by the blinded live evaluator, 12 weeks after treatment. Secondary objectives included improvement on the TLFS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, patient satisfaction, and natural look/feel of the lips up to 52 weeks. Safety assessment covered adverse events (AEs), common treatment reactions, and injection site pain.
resultsA total of 202 patients were enrolled. RHA3 was considered statistically noninferior to the comparator for lip augmentation among patients with TLFS Grades 1 to 3. It provided sustained lip volume enhancement over time, with high rates of aesthetic improvement and patient satisfaction. Most RHA3-treated patients achieved a natural look and feel of the lips that was maintained throughout the study period. Most AEs were mild to moderate, with no late-onset reactions or angioedema reported.
conclusionsRHA3 was effective for lip augmentation, providing sustained aesthetic improvement, high satisfaction, and good tolerability. These findings support the use of RHA3 as a uniquely dynamic option for natural-looking lip augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (THERAPEUTIC):
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.