ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Skin Quality and Safety Following Liquid-Form Polycaprolactone for Facial Rejuvenation: A Prospective Single-Arm Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProspective human evidence for liquid-form polycaprolactone (PCL) in facial rejuvenation is limited. We evaluated skin-quality changes and adverse events following treatment.
methodsThirty participants received three monthly superficial subcutaneous (clinically intended subdermal) treatments in an uncontrolled prospective study. Skin mechanical, pigmentary, hydration, and sebum measurements were assessed through 6 months. The registered Antera primary outcomes are not included in this focused report. Instrumental measurements were also collected at 9 and 12 months but were excluded after calibration-related reliability concerns were identified during review of the late dataset; an institutional review board amendment subsequently restricted instrumental reporting to 6 months. Analyses used mixed-effects models; the corrected analysis of the delayed-to-immediate deformation ratio (R6) used restricted maximum likelihood and Bonferroni-adjusted baseline comparisons.
resultsAll 30 participants completed treatment; attendance was 29 at 1 month and 28 at 3 and 6 months. Maximum skin deformation (R0) decreased from 0.153 ± 0.062 to 0.112 ± 0.105 mm at 6 months. The delayed-to-immediate deformation ratio (R6) decreased from 0.307 ± 0.307 to 0.174 ± 0.277 (adjusted p = 0.038; overall p = 0.001). Hydration decreased. Bruising, swelling, and persistent postprocedural pain were reported; one swelling event was moderate and the remaining events were mild. All resolved without specific treatment. No serious adverse events were reported in the available safety summary.
conclusionSkin mechanical changes were observed following liquid-form PCL treatment. The uncontrolled design, variability, and retrospective restriction of instrumental reporting limit conclusions about efficacy, mechanism, and long-term durability. Larger controlled studies are needed.
trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20250209003; retrospectively registered on February 9, 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909838What 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.