ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Efficacy and Safety of Polycaprolactone Filler in Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A Pilot Study.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nonsurgical rhinoplasty (NSR) is rapidly gaining popularity due to its convenience and lower complication risks. Polycaprolactone (PCL)-based collagen stimulator provides both immediate volumization and long-term neocollagenesis. However, evidence regarding its clinical use in NSR is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCL-based filler in NSR. Methods: We conducted a single-center, prospective study in which patients received PCL-based filler injection at baseline, followed by a supplementary treatment at 3 months. All participants were followed for at least 6 months. Outcomes were assessed using nasal anthropometric measurements, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE). Repeated measures were analyzed with generalized estimating equations (GEE). Results: A total of 10 patients were enrolled, all of whom completed treatment and follow-up. Compared with baseline, VAS and ROE scores showed statistically significant improvement at all post-treatment time points (P < 0.001). GAIS consistently indicated "much improved" or "very much improved" outcomes by both physicians and patients. Objective measurements demonstrated increased nasal length, height, depth, and tip projection, along with decreased nasal width and base width, suggesting enhanced nasal three-dimensional morphology. No adverse events were observed during the study period. Conclusion: In this pilot study, PCL-based filler achieved significant and sustained improvements in nasal morphology and satisfaction. These findings support its clinical value as a safe and effective filler for nonsurgical nasal augmentation, warranting further confirmation in larger, multicenter studies with longer follow-up.
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.