ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Efficacy Study of Facial Biomechanical A-Type Botox Injection in Reshaping the Jawline.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAging-related changes of the mandibular margin are common, and with increasing aesthetic awareness, the demand for non-surgical jawline rejuvenation is growing.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of a facial biomechanical injection technique versus a microdroplet injection technique for botulinum toxin type A jawline rejuvenation, using ultrasound and three-dimensional (3D) imaging for anatomical assessment rather than real-time injection guidance.
methodsFrom September 2023 to February 2024, 36 individuals (4 males, 32 females) seeking improvement in jawline laxity were enrolled at the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University. In a split-face, self-controlled design, the left hemiface received the facial biomechanical injection technique (observation group) and the right hemiface received the microdroplet injection technique (control group), yielding 72 treated hemifaces (36 per group). Each hemiface received a total of 20 U of botulinum toxin type A: four 5-U boluses in the facial biomechanical group and twenty 1-U microdroplets in the control group. Ultrasound imaging and 3D deviation color maps were used to evaluate soft-tissue changes at baseline and 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days after treatment. Outcome measures included Cervicomental Angle Severity (CAS, primary endpoint), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for pain, ultrasound-based soft-tissue thickness at a standardized mandibular point, and qualitative 3D color-map changes.
resultsBoth techniques improved CAS grades over time; however, the facial biomechanical injection technique produced greater improvement in CAS at 60 and 90 days compared with the microdroplet technique (P < 0.001). GAIS scores favored the facial biomechanical group at 30 days (P < 0.05). VAS scores during injection were significantly lower with the facial biomechanical technique (P < 0.001), reflecting better procedural comfort. Qualitative 3D deviation color maps and ultrasound measurements suggested a relative reduction in subcutaneous soft-tissue thickness along the mandibular margin in the facial biomechanical group, consistent with enhanced jawline definition. No serious adverse events occurred, and all treatment-related effects were transient and self-limited.
conclusionIn this pilot split-face study, the facial biomechanical botulinum toxin type A injection technique provided greater medium-term improvement in jawline contour and patient-reported comfort than the microdroplet technique, with a similar short-term safety profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42009920What 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.