Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42452433›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026

Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Versus Polynucleotides for Under-Eye Rejuvenation.

Rabia S Khan, Kashif Hafeez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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

2 authors.

Rabia S KhanICE Postgraduate Dental Institute and Hospital, 24 Furness Quay, Salford M50 3XZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7421-5248
Kashif HafeezDental Faculty Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 9SP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The periorbital region represents one of the most challenging anatomical sites in aesthetic medicine due to its thin dermis, complex vascularity, and susceptibility to oedema and contour irregularities. While hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers remain the gold standard for volumetric correction, their limitations in skin quality enhancement and risk of complications such as Tyndall effect and malar oedema have driven interest in regenerative alternatives. Polynucleotides (PN), particularly polydeoxyribonucleotides (PDRN), have emerged as bioactive agents capable of promoting dermal remodelling, angiogenesis, and anti-inflammatory responses. This review critically evaluates current evidence comparing PN and HA in periorbital rejuvenation, integrating mechanistic insights, clinical outcomes, and safety considerations. While HA remains superior for structural correction, PN demonstrates consistent improvements in dermal quality parameters, including elasticity, hydration, and fine rhytids, with a favourable safety profile. However, heterogeneity in study design, product formulation, and outcome measures limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Future research should prioritise standardised protocols, long-term follow-up, and direct comparative trials to establish optimal treatment algorithms.

Indexed as

dermal remodellinghyaluronic acid fillersperiorbital rejuvenationpolydeoxyribonucleotides (PDRN)polynucleotidesregenerative aestheticsskin qualitytear trough deformity

Identifiers

PMID42452433
PMCPMC13361502

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.