ArticleJPRAS open2025
Quantitative assessment of fixation strength in combined thread lifting: Comparative analysis of bidirectional-multidirectional versus double bidirectional thread combinations.
Article in JPRAS open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of thread lifting procedures for facial rejuvenation is significantly influenced by thread fixation strength and tissue stabilization capabilities. This study presents a quantitative biomechanical comparison between bidirectional threads (epiticon® BI, JETEMA Co., Ltd.) combined with multidirectional (epiticon® ORIGINAL, JETEMA Co., Ltd.) threads versus double bidirectional threads. Methods: Ex vivo testing was conducted on fresh cadaver tissue specimens ( Results: The bidirectional and multidirectional combination demonstrated significantly higher mean fixation strength (52.1 ±2.13 N) compared to double bidirectional (47.35 ± 2.19 N), representing an ≈10 % increase ( Conclusions: The strategic combination of bidirectional with multidirectional threads provides superior fixation strength and more uniform tissue engagement compared to using bidirectional threads exclusively. These findings have direct clinical implications for optimizing thread selection in facial rejuvenation procedures, potentially enhancing the longevity and naturalness of aesthetic outcomes.
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.