ArticlePolymers2025
Comparative Physicochemical Characterization of Polylactic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers.
Article in Polymers, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPolylactic acid can be classified into poly(L-lactic acid) (PLLA) and poly(D,L-lactic acid) (PDLLA) according to their stereoisomeric structures, and both are widely used as dermal fillers for soft tissue augmentation. Although the clinical efficacy of commercially available PLLA- and PDLLA-based fillers has been well established, variations in their physicochemical properties may lead to differences in handling characteristics and clinical performance. A systematic comparison of these properties among different PLA-based fillers remains limited. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, the physicochemical characteristics of three PDLLA-based fillers (AestheFill, NeoFilera, and Juvelook) and one PLLA-based filler (Sculptra) were evaluated. The analyses included functional group identification, particle morphology and size distribution observation, reconstitution time measurement, osmotic pressure determination, and viscosity assessment.
resultsAestheFill and NeoFilera exhibited similar profiles in terms of functional groups, size distribution, osmotic pressure, and viscosity, while NeoFilera and Juvelook showed comparable particle morphologies. Sculptra displayed distinct particle morphology and viscosity, likely attributable to its PLLA composition, yet showed similarities with Juvelook in functional group identification and osmotic pressure. Additionally, the reconstitution times of Sculptra, NeoFilera, and Juvelook were significantly shorter than that of AestheFill.
conclusionsAlthough the direct correlation between physicochemical characteristics and clinical outcomes warrants further investigation, this comparative analysis provides clinicians with a clearer understanding of the material properties of PLA-based dermal fillers and may assist in the informed selection of appropriate products for individual patients.
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.