ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of PCL and PLLA Injections for Nasolabial Fold Correction.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regenerative Functional Microspheres for Aesthetic Medicine: Mechanism, Materials, Fabrication, and Clinical Applications.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes of an Innovative Poly-L-Lactic Acid (LASYNPRO) in Facial Rejuvenation: Prospective, Multicenter Spanish Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of PCL and PLLA Injections for Nasolabial Fold Correction.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasolabial folds (NLF) deepen with age, necessitating aesthetic treatments. Polycaprolactone (PCL) and poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) are commonly used fillers. This study compares their safety and efficacy for NLF correction.
methodsParticipants aged 30-60 years were retrospectively reviewed after undergoing NLF correction with PCL (n = 65) or PLLA (n = 71) from January 2023 to December 2023. Primary outcomes included changes in the Nasolabial Fold Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes assessed patient satisfaction via the FACE-Q scale, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and safety profiles including side effects and adverse events.
resultsAt 3 months, PCL exhibited significantly greater wrinkle reduction (WSRS score: 3.08 ± 0.37) compared to PLLA (3.27 ± 0.41; p = 0.007). This trend persisted at 6 months (PCL: 2.23 ± 0.61 vs. PLLA: 2.49 ± 0.75; p = 0.03) and 12 months (PCL: 1.92 ± 0.55 vs. PLLA: 2.17 ± 0.61; p = 0.016). PCL also showed higher significant improvement rates on GAIS at 3 and 6 months. Patient satisfaction (FACE-Q) was higher in the PCL group at both 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05). Safety profiles were comparable, with no significant differences in injection site reactions or adverse events.
conclusionPCL injections demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing NLF wrinkle severity and achieving higher patient satisfaction compared to PLLA injections over a 12-month period. Both materials exhibited comparable safety profiles, suggesting the suitability of PCL as a preferable option for NLF correction in cosmetic dermatology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.