ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Evaluation of Bio-Stimulation Effects of Various Dermal Fillers: Hyaluronic Acid-Based Polynucleotides and Microparticle Fillers in Mouse Model.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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.
- Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Versus Polynucleotides for Under-Eye Rejuvenation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Polydioxanone Microsphere Fillers for Nasolabial Fold Correction: A Comparative Study.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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDermal fillers have become prevalent in aesthetic surgery, offering noninvasive solutions for addressing signs of aging and enhancing facial features.
methodsIn this study, the in vivo administration of dermal fillers, including a hyaluronic-cross-linked filler (HA-R), a PDLLA-HA combined filler (HA-PDLLA), a microparticle PDO filler (PDO), a PN filler extracted from salmon milt (PN), and pure hyaluronic acid (HA), along with PBS as a control, was evaluated over a 12 week period.
resultsHA-R exhibited sustained volume retention, contrasting with rapid volume loss observed with PN, and gradual dissolution of PDO by week 12. Histological evaluation revealed varying inflammatory responses, with PDO showing notable alleviation of inflammation after 8 weeks. MT staining demonstrated increased collagen formation post-injection, peaking at 4 weeks for most fillers. Immunofluorescent staining highlighted the initial promotion of collagen synthesis by PDO and HA-PDLLA, followed by a subsequent decline after 8 weeks.
conclusionThis study provided comprehensive insights into the biophysical properties and efficacy of various dermal fillers in stimulating collagen production. PDO and HA-PDLLA initially demonstrated efficacy in promoting collagen synthesis, but limitations were noted in sustaining long-term collagen production. Understanding the dynamics of filler administration and its impact on tissue response is essential for optimizing outcomes in aesthetic surgery practice. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40897965What 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.