ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Hyaluronic Acid Filler CPM-V ± Lidocaine for Chin Augmentation: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Post-Market Follow-Up 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This post-marketing study evaluated the clinical performance and safety of Belotero Methods: This prospective, open-label, randomized study was carried out in Germany. Participants seeking chin augmentation received treatment with CPM-V (n=58) or CPM-V+ (n=63), with an optional touch-up 4 weeks after. The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in chin volume (mL) from baseline to 12 weeks after the last injection (Week 12 or Week 16 for participants with touch-up treatment), measured by validated 3D facial imaging. Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in the glabella-subnasale-pogonion (G-Sn-Pg) angle (°), the investigator- and participant-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scales (iGAIS/pGAIS) scores, the investigator-assessed Merz Aesthetics Scale (MAS) for chin projection, and participant satisfaction with treatment evaluated by FACE-Q - Satisfaction with Chin. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting. Results: From baseline to Week 12/16, chin volume increased by a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 2.5 (0.2) mL (95% confidence interval 2.1, 2.9; p<0.0001) and mean (SD) G-Sn-Pg angle increased by 1.9° (1.7°). At Week 12/16, almost all participants experienced ≥1 point improvements from baseline in MAS for chin projection (91.4%), iGAIS (100%), and pGAIS (99.1%). The mean (SD) Rasch-transformed score FACE-Q - Satisfaction with Chin was 66.6 (18.7) at Week 12/16. Thirty participants (24.8%) reported treatment-related adverse events; incidence was similar between treatment groups and the majority of events were mild to moderate in intensity and transient in nature. Conclusion: CPM-V and CPM-V+ were effective for chin augmentation in aesthetic clinical practice. No new safety concerns were identified.
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.