Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772568›Full record

ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025

Continuous Improvement of Frontal Rhytids Following Glabella Only Treatments With Neuromodulators-A Clinical Prospective Pilot Study.

Victor R M Munoz-Lora, Victor Rogerio, Vanessa Thiesen, Ana C N Carnevali, Carlos Bravo, Sachin M Shridharani, David Eccleston, Michael Alfertshofer, Marcelo Germani, Sebastian Cotofana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Victor R M Munoz-LoraDepartment of Periodontology and Implantology, University of Guarulhos, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-8542
Victor RogerioLet's HOF Academy, São Paulo, Brazil.
Vanessa ThiesenPrivate Practice, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Ana C N CarnevaliPrivate Practice, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos BravoPrivate Practice, San Jose, Costa Rica.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6366-8428
Sachin M ShridharaniDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University, St. Luis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0193-349X
David EcclestonPrivate Practice, Birmingham, UK.
Michael AlfertshoferDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4892-2376
Marcelo GermaniDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Sebastian CotofanaDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7210-6566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile traditionally focused on treating glabellar and forehead rhytids through direct neuromodulator injections, recent findings on the biomechanics of facial muscles suggest that glabellar treatments alone may influence forehead wrinkles by altering the dynamic balance between depressor and elevator muscles.

objectiveTo evaluate whether glabellar-only neuromodulator treatments can reduce forehead wrinkle severity without direct injections into the frontalis muscle.

methodsThis prospective, interventional study included 18 participants with moderate to very severe glabellar lines. Neuromodulator (AbobotulinumtoxinA; 37.5 sU (= 15 IU)) injections were administered exclusively in the glabella at three intervals over 7 months. Glabellar Severity Scale (GLSS), Forehead Wrinkle Scale (FWS), Frontal Skin Displacement (FSD), and Eyebrow Position Scoring (EPS) were assessed at baseline and 30 days after each cycle.

resultsGLSS scores significantly improved across treatment cycles (baseline: 3.0; post-third cycle: 1.0; p < 0.001). FWS improved from 3.0 at baseline to 1.0 after the third cycle (p = 0.005), while FSD showed a significant reduction from 37.2 mm to 17.9 mm (p < 0.01). No changes in eyebrow position were detected following EPS assessment.

conclusionGlabellar-only neuromodulator treatments with 37.5 sU (= 15 IU) effectively reduced forehead rhytid severity, likely by altering the balance between depressor and elevator muscles. This approach minimizes risks associated with direct frontalis injections and offers a novel strategy for forehead rejuvenation. Moreover, the observed progressive improvement across treatment cycles suggests that this strategy may continuously enhance aesthetic outcomes over time, supporting the rationale for maintenance treatments at regular intervals.

Indexed as

Botulinum Toxins, Type ACosmetic TechniquesNeuromuscular AgentsSkin AgingAdultAgedEyebrowsFacial MusclesFemaleForeheadHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeabobotulinumtoxinABotulinum Toxins, Type ANeuromuscular Agentsfacial aestheticsfacial biomechanicsforehead linesglabellar linesneuromodulator treatments

Identifiers

PMID40772568
PMCPMC12330204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.