Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2026
Safety and Effectiveness of Two High-G' Soft Tissue Fillers for Chin Augmentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Comparator-Controlled, Evaluator-Blinded Trial.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe chin is a crucial facial feature for overall attractiveness. Lower third imbalance can lead to signs of premature aging and loss of jawline contour. Effective chin augmentation with hyaluronic acid fillers has been demonstrated in the literature. Currently, however, no study has compared the safety and effectiveness of two high-G' fillers.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to examine each filler's effectiveness in the correction of chin retrusion through a prospective, randomized, comparator-controlled, evaluator-blinded trial.
methodsThis study compared the safety and effectiveness of HASHA (Restylane Shaype) vs HAVLX (Juvederm Volux) for chin augmentation and correction of chin retrusion. A prospective, randomized, comparator-controlled, evaluator-blinded trial was conducted at a single research center. Forty participants aged 18 years or older with mild to severe chin retrusion were included and randomly allocated 1:1 to either HASHA (n = 20) or HAVLX (n = 20). The primary study endpoint was to examine differences in parameters associated with determining chin shape. Secondary endpoints included adverse events and patient satisfaction.
resultsOf the 40 participants enrolled in the trial, 37 (92.5%) were female and 3 (7.5%) were male. Although an independent-samples t-test revealed no statistically significant difference in total volumes of filler used with HAVLX (mean [standard deviation], 1.85 [0.69] mL) or HASHA (mean, 1.86 [0.89] mL, P = .953). When focused on the menton/pogonion injections, HAVLX required 15.27% more product than HASHA (mean, 1.48 mL vs 1.27 mL, P = .28). There was a statistically significant difference in efficiency score for correcting labiomental angle, with the mean efficiency score being 2.57 [1.67] for HASHA and 1.50 [1.11] for HAVLX (P = .02).
conclusionsWith no statistically significant difference in overall volume utilized between HASHA and HAVLX, HASHA injections required 15.27% less volume in the menton/pogonion to achieve visual correction. Additionally, HASHA demonstrated a significantly higher efficiency score for correction of nasomental angle. Secondary endpoints were not significantly different and demonstrate that both products are safe and effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 (THERAPEUTIC):
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.