ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Versus Polynucleotides for Under-Eye Rejuvenation.
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.
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
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
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.