ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Biodegradability and Biocompatibility of Agarose Gel and Hyaluronic Acid Filler.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical success of soft tissue fillers hinges on their biodegradability and biocompatibility. While agarose gel, a clinically available filler, shows versatility across injection sites, its degradation behavior and tissue effects remain poorly understood.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the biodegradability and biocompatibility of agarose gel and hyaluronic acid fillers using a rat model.
methodAgarose gel and hyaluronic acid were subcutaneously injected into Sprague-Dawley rats' dorsal regions. MRI scans at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months assessed filler volume and distribution. SEM examined morphology, in vitro tests measured water absorption, and histology at 12 months included HE staining and immunohistochemistry for collagen and macrophage markers.
resultHyaluronic acid exhibited higher water absorption than agarose gel (p < 0.05). MRI revealed greater initial volume retention for hyaluronic acid (0.762 ml vs. 0.283 ml, p = 0.025), while agarose gel demonstrated a slower biodegradation rate during the first three months (86.24% vs. 61.88%, p = 0.004) and greater early-phase dispersion (109.89% vs. 65.24%, p = 0.020). At 12 months, no significant difference in final volume retention was observed. Both fillers showed good biocompatibility, with no signs of fibrosis or inflammation after one year.
conclusionThese findings from an animal study suggest agarose gel's potential as a safe and effective alternative for soft tissue augmentation. 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. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40999239What 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.