Weiner Steven F, Hicks Jessica A, Nguyen Thu, Meckfessel Matthew
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2025 Jan 17;7:ojaf006. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojaf006. eCollection 2025.
Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are one of the most popular aesthetic treatments for midface volumization, achieving optimal aesthetic improvements. Given the variety of HA filler products available, it is important for injectors to understand how their rheological properties can influence behavior in tissues.
To evaluate and compare (1) product integration and dynamic support and (2) lifting capacity of 2 rheologically different HA fillers (HA Contour [HA] and HA Voluma [HA]) through ultrasound and clinical photography.
Randomized, split-face study ( = 11) comparing 2 midface HA fillers over a 12-month period with initial injection along the zygomatic arch at Day 0 and optional touch-up at Month 1. Eligible patients were aged 22 to 65 years with midface volume loss and contour deficiency. Assessments included ultrasound (neutral and smiling), clinical photography with 3D volume change (lifting capacity) analyses, and adverse event reporting. Volume change was assessed at 2 regions: midface and infraorbital hollow (IOH).
With similar average total injection volumes, both fillers had comparable lifting capacity in the midface (HA: ≥2.07 mL and HA: ≥2.08 mL; > .05) and IOH (HA: ≥0.45 mL and HA: ≥0.57 mL; > .05) areas for up to 12 months. Ultrasound showed that HA integrated into the tissue, stretching and elongating during a smiling expression, whereas HA did not integrate as much, with aggregates consistent in size and shape during both neutral and smiling expressions through 12 months. No adverse events were reported during the study.
HA demonstrated a similar duration of lifting capacity (volumization) as HA but had more distributed product integration and flexibility to support dynamic expressions through 12 months.
透明质酸（HA）填充剂是用于中面部容积增加最受欢迎的美容治疗方法之一，可实现最佳的美学改善效果。鉴于现有多种HA填充剂产品，注射者了解其流变学特性如何影响在组织中的行为很重要。
通过超声和临床摄影评估并比较两种流变学特性不同的HA填充剂（HA Contour [HA]和HA Voluma [HA]）的（1）产品整合和动态支撑以及（2）提升能力。
随机、半脸研究（n = 11），在12个月期间比较两种中面部HA填充剂，于第0天沿颧弓进行初次注射，并在第1个月进行可选的补打。符合条件的患者年龄在22至65岁之间，有中面部容积减少和轮廓缺陷。评估包括超声检查（自然表情和微笑表情）、具有三维容积变化（提升能力）分析的临床摄影以及不良事件报告。在两个区域评估容积变化：中面部和眶下凹陷（IOH）。
在平均总注射量相似的情况下，两种填充剂在中面部（HA：≥2.07 mL，HA：≥2.08 mL；P >.05）和IOH区域（HA：≥0.45 mL，HA：≥0.57 mL；P >.05）的提升能力在长达12个月的时间内相当。超声显示，HA融入组织，在微笑表情时伸展拉长，而HA融入程度没那么高，在长达12个月的自然表情和微笑表情期间，聚集体的大小和形状保持一致。研究期间未报告不良事件。
HA显示出与HA相似的提升能力（容积增加）持续时间，但在长达12个月的时间内具有更分散的产品整合以及支撑动态表情的灵活性。
