Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Efficacy and Safety of Poly-l-Lactic Acid for Correction of Midfacial Volume Loss and Contour Defects: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel-Controlled, Evaluator-Blinded, Superiority Trial.
Trial report 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Poly-l-Lactic Acid for Correction of Midfacial Volume Loss and Contour Defects: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel-Controlled, Evaluator-Blinded, Superiority Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- Regenerative Functional Microspheres for Aesthetic Medicine: Mechanism, Materials, Fabrication, and Clinical Applications.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Review
- PLLA and PDLLA Fillers: Linking Crystallinity and Mechanical Stability to Aggregation, Redispersion, and Collagen Formation.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) is widely used in esthetic medicine due to its excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PLLA facial filler in correcting midfacial volume loss and/or contour defects.
methodsIn this prospective, multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded, superiority clinical trial, 331 subjects were randomly assigned to receive either PLLA (experimental group) or hyaluronic acid (HA, control group). Efficacy was assessed using the Midfacial Volume Scale (MMVS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Safety was evaluated based on adverse events.
resultsThe PLLA group demonstrated significantly higher efficacy in MMVS scores compared to the HA group (90.57% vs. 51.01%, difference of 39.56%, 95% CI: 30.34%-48.78%). These results were consistent across worst-case and per-protocol analyses. Secondary outcomes revealed higher MMVS and GAIS scores in the PLLA group at 6 months (MMVS: 93.04% vs. 69.33%, GAIS investigator rating: 99.37% vs. 86.67%) and 12 months (MMVS: 84.91% vs. 46.98%, GAIS investigator rating: 94.34% vs. 74.50%) (p < 0.05). Participant satisfaction surveys showed higher satisfaction in the PLLA group (p < 0.05). Safety analysis revealed no significant differences in vital signs, laboratory tests, or adverse events (p > 0.05), with a slightly higher incidence of injection site reactions in the PLLA group, which resolved within 1-3 days.
conclusionThe comprehensive analysis of results indicates that PLLA is a safe and effective treatment for the correction of midfacial volume loss and midfacial contour defects.
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.