Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
A Comprehensive Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes in Poly-L-Lactic Acid Treatments-A Randomized, Interventional, and Comparative Clinical Study.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term In Vivo Biological Performance of PLLA-b-PEG/HA Filler.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) is widely used in aesthetic medicine due to its bio-stimulatory properties. However, limited research has compared different PLLA formulations.
aimTo evaluate the impact of PLLA formulation and injection depth (subcutaneous vs. supraperiosteal) using objective and subjective assessments. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized clinical trial with split-face and parallel components included 20 participants. Each participant received a single PLLA formulation of PLLA-SCA (Sculptra) or PLLA-ELL (Elleva), while the injection plane was alternated between hemifaces. Dermal thickness was assessed using ultrasonography at baseline, 60, and 120 days. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS).
resultsDermal thickness increased over time but showed no significant differences between products (p = 0.78) or injection planes (p = 0.83). GAIS scores were positive at 60 days but declined significantly at 120 days (p = 0.031), particularly for PLLA-ELL (p = 0.022). No significant correlation was found between dermal thickness and GAIS scores at 60 (ρ = -0.038, p = 0.819) or 120 days (ρ = 0.016, p = 0.927).
conclusionsInjection depth did not significantly influence PLLA outcomes. However, differences in patient satisfaction between PLLA formulations highlight the role of physicochemical properties in treatment longevity. These findings emphasized the need to integrate objective and subjective measures in assessing bio-stimulatory treatments.
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.