Scholarlink

Background <p>Nasolabial folds (NLFs), the pronounced furrows extending from the base of the nose to the corners of the mouth, tend to deepen and lengthen as a natural consequence of aging. Currently, one of the most prevalent treatments for NLFs involves injectable tissue fillers. Although various types of fillers have been utilized in clinical settings, there exists a paucity of research dedicated to evaluating their comparative efficacy. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different tissue fillers in treating NLFs.</p> Methods <p>Relevant studies were searched on several online databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of different tissue fillers for NLF correction were included in the study.</p> Results <p>A total of 20 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), poly-<span>d</span>,<span>l</span>-lactic acid (PDLLA), and hyaluronic acid (HA) demonstrated superior efficacy for NLF amelioration when compared to bovine and human collagen at 6–9 months post-treatment. Notably, CaHA exhibited greater effectiveness than HA; however, no significant difference was observed when compared to PDLLA. Furthermore, the differences among monophasic HA, biphasic small-particle HA, and biphasic large-particle HA were not statistically significant.</p> Conclusion <p>In terms of the effectiveness of tissue fillers for the amelioration of NLFs, CaHA achieved better efficacy compared to HA and collagen at 6–9 months post-treatment. No significant difference was observed between monophasic HA and biphasic HA. However, additional reviews of rigorous RCTs are required for further verification.</p> Level of Evidence I <p>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 <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Different Tissue Fillers for Nasolabial Fold Correction

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月7日

查看全文
  • Hsi-An Yang,
  • Ta-Hsien Chuang,
  • Wun-Long Jheng

摘要

Background

Nasolabial folds (NLFs), the pronounced furrows extending from the base of the nose to the corners of the mouth, tend to deepen and lengthen as a natural consequence of aging. Currently, one of the most prevalent treatments for NLFs involves injectable tissue fillers. Although various types of fillers have been utilized in clinical settings, there exists a paucity of research dedicated to evaluating their comparative efficacy. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different tissue fillers in treating NLFs.

Methods

Relevant studies were searched on several online databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of different tissue fillers for NLF correction were included in the study.

Results

A total of 20 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), poly-d,l-lactic acid (PDLLA), and hyaluronic acid (HA) demonstrated superior efficacy for NLF amelioration when compared to bovine and human collagen at 6–9 months post-treatment. Notably, CaHA exhibited greater effectiveness than HA; however, no significant difference was observed when compared to PDLLA. Furthermore, the differences among monophasic HA, biphasic small-particle HA, and biphasic large-particle HA were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

In terms of the effectiveness of tissue fillers for the amelioration of NLFs, CaHA achieved better efficacy compared to HA and collagen at 6–9 months post-treatment. No significant difference was observed between monophasic HA and biphasic HA. However, additional reviews of rigorous RCTs are required for further verification.

Level of Evidence I

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.