Germani Marcelo, de Queiroz Márcia V G B, Yuri de França Shimizu Mariana, Teixeira Thiago Gomes, Rogerio Victor, Giro Gabriela, Munoz-Lora Victor R M
Department of Periodontology and Implantology, University of Guarulhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Private Office, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025 Jan-Feb;15(1):178-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.01.001. Epub 2025 Jan 13.
This study aimed to compare the in-vitro behavior of four Hyaluronic acid (HA) gels when exposed to two different hyaluronidase (HSE) formulations.
Four commercially available HA were used: Lyft (Lt; Restylane, Galderma, Sweden), Voluma (Vol; Allergan, AbbVie, USA), UltraDeep (UDe; Rennova, Innovapharma, Brazil), and Subskin (Skn; Perfectha, Sinclair, France). The gels were divided into two groups, with seven aliquots (0.1 mL per aliquot) for each group deposited on a glass plate. A millimeter ruler was positioned behind the plate to measure the gel height. Each aliquot received 100 UTR of one of two HSE formulations. After 2 min, each aliquot was mixed using a 22G needle and left to sit for additional 2 min.
Partial and final degradation of the products were obtained through photographic analysis. The final percentage of degradation exhibited significant differences among HA gels (P < 0.001). The results revealed higher degradation in Lt, moderate degradation in UDe, and lower degradation in Vol and Skn. Comparisons of HSE formulations showed no significant differences among them (P = 0.881). Moreover, there was a noticeable degradation after mixing (P < 0.001).
Within the limits of this study, it can be suggested that Lt exhibits the higher degradation among the experimented gels. Furthermore, differences among HSE formulations do not appear to significantly impact HA degradation, while the mixing movement of HSE and HA seems to influence the degradation rate. These findings may help guide clinical decisions regarding the use of hyaluronidase in managing HA filler complications or adjustments.
本研究旨在比较四种透明质酸（HA）凝胶在暴露于两种不同的透明质酸酶（HSE）制剂时的体外行为。
使用了四种市售的HA：Lyft（Lt；瑞蓝，高德美，瑞典）、乔雅登极致（Vol；艾尔建，艾伯维，美国）、极致深层（UDe；瑞诺瓦，英诺法玛，巴西）和皮下填充（Skn；完美透明质酸，辛克莱，法国）。将凝胶分为两组，每组七份等分试样（每份0.1 mL）沉积在玻璃板上。在板后放置一把毫米尺以测量凝胶高度。每份等分试样接受两种HSE制剂之一的100 UTR。2分钟后，使用22G针头将每份等分试样混合，并再静置2分钟。
通过照片分析获得了产品的部分和最终降解情况。HA凝胶之间的最终降解百分比存在显著差异（P < 0.001）。结果显示Lt降解程度较高，UDe降解程度中等，Vol和Skn降解程度较低。HSE制剂之间的比较显示它们之间没有显著差异（P = 0.881）。此外，混合后有明显的降解（P < 0.001）。
在本研究的范围内，可以认为Lt在实验凝胶中表现出较高的降解程度。此外，HSE制剂之间的差异似乎不会显著影响HA的降解，而HSE与HA的混合运动似乎会影响降解速率。这些发现可能有助于指导关于使用透明质酸酶处理HA填充剂并发症或调整的临床决策。
