Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2026
Safety and Effectiveness of a Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Filler in Korean Patients for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: A Randomized, Patient- and Evaluator-Blinded, Paired Study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers are widely used as a nonsurgical treatment for facial aging, including nasolabial folds (NLFs). Because demand for convenient aesthetic procedures increases, new HA products require rigorous comparison with established fillers.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the noninferiority and safety of a new crosslinked HA filler, SkinPlus-HYAL Implant Lidocaine (test), vs RESTYLANE Lidocaine (control) for temporary correction of moderate to severe NLFs.
methodsIn this multicenter, randomized, patient- and evaluator-blinded, split-face study, 100 adults with moderate or severe NLFs received the test filler in 1 NLF and the control in the contralateral NLF. Efficacy was analyzed in the full analysis set (n = 93). The primary endpoint was the between-treatment difference in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) scores at Week 24. Safety was evaluated in the safety set (n = 100). Group differences were analyzed using a 2-sample t-test.
resultsAt Week 24, mean WSRS scores were 1.85 ± 0.72 (test) and 1.84 ± 0.68 (control). The mean difference (test - control) was 0.01 ± 0.48, with an upper 97.5% 1-sided confidence limit of 0.2136, below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.29. Investigator-rated Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores at Week 24 and patient-rated GAIS scores at Week 8 favored the test filler. Local adverse events were more frequent with the test (92.00%) than the control (82.0%), but severe injection-site reactions were uncommon, and no serious adverse events occurred.
conclusionsSkinPlus-HYAL Implant Lidocaine was noninferior to RESTYLANE Lidocaine for correction of moderate to severe NLFs and maintained efficacy through 48 weeks. Despite a higher rate of local reactions, its overall safety profile was acceptable, supporting its use as an effective, safe option for facial aesthetic augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (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.