ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Polycaprolactone versus calcium hydroxylapatite injectable treatments in the T-zone for facial rejuvenation: a clinical comparative study.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis analysis, being a retrospective study, set out to compare the effect of polycaprolactone (PCL) versus calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) in injectable T-zone rejuvenation.
methodsA total of 147 patients receiving facial T-zone rejuvenation with injectables at our center constituted the research cohort. Inter-group assessments (PCL group with 72 cases vs. CaHA group with 75 cases) were conducted from the dimensions of curative efficacy, dynamic nasion displacement, physician-assessed tactile perception of hardness score, nasofrontal angle, effect maintenance duration, treatment interval, facial skin laxity status, facial aesthetic score, serum growth factors, and patient satisfaction.
resultsAs compared to the PCL group, the CaHA group (1) showed an evidently higher excellent-and-good rate and superior patient satisfaction; (2) demonstrated lower dynamic nasion displacement, nasofrontal angle, and facial skin laxity-associated indices (except the interzygomatic distance) post-operation; (3) exhibited statistically higher post-treatment physician-assessed tactile perception of hardness scores, nasofrontal angle target achievement rate, longer effect maintenance duration, better maintenance of the radix height and chin projection at 12 months, extended treatment intervals, as well as higher aesthetic scores and VEGF and bFGF levels. No significant inter-group difference in the total adverse reactions was identified.
conclusionCaHA is clinically advantageous over PCL in injectable T-zone rejuvenation.
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.