Scholarlink

Background <p>Dermal fillers are widely used in aesthetic practice; however, none fully meet expectations in terms of biocompatibility, predictability, and long-term stability. Autologous plasma gel (PG) has been proposed as a biological alternative, yet comparative experimental data remain limited.</p> Objective <p>To evaluate PG as a dermal filler and compare its volumetric behavior and histopathological characteristics with hyaluronic acid fillers and autologous fat graft (FG) in a rat model.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-two male Sprague–Dawley rats were included. In a within-subject design, PG, FG, and two commercial hyaluronic acid fillers (HA-1 and HA-2) were injected into predefined dorsal quadrants. Volumetric assessment was performed using computed tomography at 1, 3, and 5 months. Histopathological evaluation focused on material persistence, neovascularization, and inflammatory response.</p> Results <p>At 1–3&#xa0;months, PG demonstrated lower volume compared with the other materials. By 5&#xa0;months, no significant differences were observed. Despite lower early volume, PG exhibited a more stable volumetric profile over time compared with FG and became comparable to hyaluronic acid fillers at later time points. Histologically, PG showed lower inflammatory and neovascularization scores, while material persistence remained similar across groups.</p> Conclusions <p>PG demonstrated favorable biocompatibility and a stable longitudinal volume profile in this experimental model. Although early volume was lower, long-term outcomes were comparable to established fillers, supporting further clinical investigation of PG as an autologous filler option.</p> Level of Evidence V <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

Autologous Plasma Gel as a Dermal Filler: A Head-to-Head Experimental Comparison with Hyaluronic Acid Fillers and Fat Grafts in a Rat Model

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月30日

查看全文
  • Oguz Atan,
  • Murat Celik,
  • Nezih Sungur,
  • Kadri Ozer,
  • Hakan Teymur,
  • Gokay Baykara,
  • Muzaffer Caydere,
  • Sema Hucumenoglu,
  • Pinar Nercis Kosar,
  • Ugur Kocer

摘要

Background

Dermal fillers are widely used in aesthetic practice; however, none fully meet expectations in terms of biocompatibility, predictability, and long-term stability. Autologous plasma gel (PG) has been proposed as a biological alternative, yet comparative experimental data remain limited.

Objective

To evaluate PG as a dermal filler and compare its volumetric behavior and histopathological characteristics with hyaluronic acid fillers and autologous fat graft (FG) in a rat model.

Methods

Thirty-two male Sprague–Dawley rats were included. In a within-subject design, PG, FG, and two commercial hyaluronic acid fillers (HA-1 and HA-2) were injected into predefined dorsal quadrants. Volumetric assessment was performed using computed tomography at 1, 3, and 5 months. Histopathological evaluation focused on material persistence, neovascularization, and inflammatory response.

Results

At 1–3 months, PG demonstrated lower volume compared with the other materials. By 5 months, no significant differences were observed. Despite lower early volume, PG exhibited a more stable volumetric profile over time compared with FG and became comparable to hyaluronic acid fillers at later time points. Histologically, PG showed lower inflammatory and neovascularization scores, while material persistence remained similar across groups.

Conclusions

PG demonstrated favorable biocompatibility and a stable longitudinal volume profile in this experimental model. Although early volume was lower, long-term outcomes were comparable to established fillers, supporting further clinical investigation of PG as an autologous filler option.

Level of Evidence V

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.