ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
A Retrospective Case Series Reporting the Safety of a Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) Composite Filler for Facial Augmentation.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA novel polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-based filler has been developed for durable facial augmentation. Despite its clinical application, long-term real-world data regarding its safety profile remain limited.
objectiveThis study aimed to retrospectively assess the long-term safety profile and clinical outcomes of this PVA-based filler for facial augmentation.
methodsA multi-center, retrospective case series was conducted across eight aesthetic clinics in China. Medical records of patients who received the PVA-based filler for facial augmentation between January 2022 and January 2025 with a follow-up of at least 18 months were reviewed. Adverse events (AEs) were extracted from the original medical charts and follow-up logs and were classified by time of onset, type, and severity. A post hoc descriptive efficacy assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and FACE-Q was performed on a sub-cohort with complete photographic documentation exceeding 12 months.
resultsA total of 279 patient charts were included, with a mean follow-up period of 24.5 ± 7.2 months. Three patients (1.07%) reported at least one AE (totaling 4 events), all of which were early-onset, transient, and mild injection site reactions that resolved spontaneously. No late-onset adverse events were reported in this cohort. The descriptive efficacy analysis (n = 18) demonstrated sustained corrective effects, with a 72.2% improvement rate on GAIS and high patient satisfaction scores on FACE-Q.
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort, the PVA-based composite filler demonstrated a low incidence of adverse events, with absence of documented late-onset complications in 279 patients. Descriptive observations of long-term efficacy are encouraging; further prospective, controlled studies are warranted to objectively substantiate its durability and performance.
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.