ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
iLips
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMigration is one of the most feared complications following lip filler. The use of a specific filler with a high degree of elasticity and cohesiveness could be the key to solve the problem if injections are performed in the correct anatomical plane. The purpose of this study was to describe the authors' 5-year experience with a new concept of lip filling, iLips. This reproducible approach combines elasticity and cohesiveness of a 25,5 mg/ml filler injected through superficial micro-tunnels in a virtual space between orbicularis muscle and mucosa creating a tridimensional net that respects lip dynamic also leading to a low risk of filler migration.
methodsA total of 4583 consecutive patients who underwent lip filler with iLips technique were enrolled in this prospective study. An objective evaluation on the aesthetic results was obtained by a jury composed of 3 external plastic surgeons using Lip Fullness Merz scale. PROMs were investigated through FACE-Q administration to the patients ("Psychological function", "Satisfaction with outcome" and "Satisfaction with lips" scales). Statistical analysis was performed through Prism10. Complications were reported.
resultst-test with Welch's correction showed an improvement in Lip Fullness Merz score both in upper and lower lip (p<0.05). A similar trend was shown also for "Psychological function", "Satisfaction with outcome" and "Satisfaction with lips" mean values after the procedure. Just 2 cases of major vascular complications were reported.
conclusioniLips ® seem to be a safe, highly reproducible, effective and satisfying approach for lip augmentation positively impacting also the patient's psychological sphere. 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
42332314What 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.