ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Expert Panel Guidelines for Hybrid CaHA-CMC/CPM-HA Fillers in the Mexican Population.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expert Panel Guidelines for Hybrid CaHA-CMC/CPM-HA Fillers in the Mexican Population.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCombination of calcium hydroxylapatite-carboxymethylcellulose (CaHA-CMC) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in a single syringe has shown effectiveness and safety. In light of the growing popularity of hybrid fillers in aesthetic medicine, there is a need to establish treatment guidelines, especially focusing on diverse populations, including Mexicans.
methodsBy combining the clinical expertise of 10 Mexican injectors with scientific evidence, recommendations were established for the use of hybrids in treating patients from a Mexican population. The panel reached consensus on 10 topics: skin preparation, anesthetic use, hybrid filler preparation, syringe choice, injection protocol by anatomical zone, duration of treatment, complications/adverse events, patient perspective, treatment costs and future perspectives.
resultsRegardless of the CPM-HA or anatomic area, a 1:1 ratio of CaHA-CMC to CPM-HA, was the preferred ratio for filler preparation and was administered subcutaneously using fanning and retro-injection techniques. Almost all experts (9/10, 90%) believed the clinical outcomes obtained with hybrid fillers and the reduced treatment time (number of visits required) justify the increased cost. Main factors in driving increased adoption of hybrid treatments in clinical practice were high patient satisfaction, clinical efficacy, innovation, and prolonged duration of results. The choice of CPM-HA for the hybrid filler should be guided by skin quality, degree of sagging, volume loss, underlying anatomy, and patient expectations.
conclusionsThis paper provided recommendations regarding the preparation and injection of CaHA-CMC and CPM-HA combinations across different anatomical regions. These contributions aim to support clinical decision-making, optimize outcomes, and improve patient safety in aesthetic treatments.
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.