Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42188634›Full record

ReviewToxins2026

Beyond Wrinkle Efficacy: Toward a Broader Assessment of Longitudinal Compatibility in Routine Upper-Face Aesthetic BoNT-A.

Andrea Felice Armenti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andrea Felice ArmentiLA VISION Training Institute, Via Magenta, 5, 00199 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0001-8139-9169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is well established for the esthetic treatment of upper-face dynamic lines, and long-term adult studies suggest that repeated treatment may remain effective and acceptable over time in many patients. However, wrinkle efficacy and patient satisfaction do not by themselves determine whether repeated treatment remains acceptable in broader morphologic, dynamic-expressive, and longitudinal terms. At the same time, the toxin's pharmacology entails finite presynaptic blockade followed by active synaptic and architectural recovery, and imaging, histological, and neurophysiological studies indicate that repeated chemodenervation cannot be assumed to be biologically neutral at the muscle level. The resulting problem is not whether BoNT-A works, but whether current outcome frameworks are sufficient to judge repeated-treatment compatibility in full. Here, structural tolerance is proposed as a provisional clinical lens for an underdescribed boundary: whether repeated-treatment compatibility is fully captured by wrinkle reduction and patient acceptability alone. The paper organizes this problem across morphologic, dynamic-expressive, and longitudinal domains, outlines candidate warning signs, and develops a pragmatic tiered approach to assessment spanning routine care, structured clinical follow-up, and research-oriented evaluation. The aim is to support more complete longitudinal thinking in upper-face aesthetic BoNT-A, to clarify what current outcome frameworks remain unaddressed, and to identify priorities for future empirical study.

Indexed as

Botulinum Toxins, Type ACosmetic TechniquesNeuromuscular AgentsSkin AgingEstheticsFaceHumansPatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeBotulinum Toxins, Type ANeuromuscular Agentsbotulinum toxin Aesthetic medicinefacial expressivitylongitudinal assessmentmuscle adaptationtreatment compatibilityupper facewrinkle efficacy

Identifiers

PMID42188634
PMCPMC13211441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.