Hubbry Logo
Injectable fillerInjectable fillerMain
Open search
Injectable filler
Community hub
Injectable filler
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Injectable filler
Injectable filler
Injectable filler
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Injectable filler is a special type of substance made for injections into connective tissues, such as skin, cartilage or even bone, for cosmetic or medical purposes. The most common application of injectable fillers is to change one's facial appearance, but they also are used to reduce symptoms of osteoarthritis, treat tendon or ligament injuries, support bone and gum regeneration, and for other medical applications. Injectable fillers can be in the form of hydrogel or gels made from pulverized grafts.

Injectable fillers have risen in popularity mostly due to the wide application of dermal fillers in 80's. Their premise is to help fill in facial wrinkles, provide facial volume, and augment facial features. Side effects include bruising or infections from improper sterilisation. This may include HIV infection, also allergic reactions, which may cause scarring and lumps. Blindness due to retrograde (opposite the direction of normal blood flow) embolization into the ophthalmic and retinal arteries can occur.

Injection of dermal fillers is the second most common nonsurgical cosmetic procedure in the USA, used for addressing volume deficiency, scars, wrinkles, and enhancing facial features and specific anatomical sites like the lips. The variety of available dermal fillers increases annually, requiring dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons to stay informed about the latest options to ensure safe and effective treatments. [1]

Materials used

[edit]

Fillers are made of polysaccharides such as hyaluronic acids (a naturally occurring glycosaminoglycan in skin and cartilage),[2] collagens which may come from pigs, cows, cadavers, or may be generated in a laboratory,[3] the person's own transplanted fat tissue, and/or biosynthetic polymers. Examples of the latter include calcium hydroxylapatite, polycaprolactone, polymethylmethacrylate, and polylactic acid.[4] In 2012, "Artiste Assisted Injection System" was launched in the US market to assist in the delivery of dermal fillers. A study in 2013 concluded that the injecting device can achieve reductions in patient discomfort and adverse events by controlling the rate of flow of injection of the filler the practitioner is using to fill in the lips and frown lines.[5]

Soft-tissue augmentation has grown in popularity recently, particularly with the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) based dermal fillers. These non-permanent injectables can restore lost volume, smooth fine lines and wrinkles, and enhance facial contours. Despite their widespread use since the late 1990s, there is limited comparative data and literature on the diverse range of HA fillers and their tissue performance.

The studies explore various methods and parameters for characterizing dermal fillers, providing key insights for clinicians to select the most suitable products for their patients. The aging face undergoes complex changes due to bone resorption, gravity, fat redistribution, and skin damage, which dermal fillers aim to counteract. HA fillers are considered medical devices rather than medicines, thus lacking stringent regulatory requirements for safety and efficacy data.

The scientific community emphasizes the importance of understanding the physico-chemical properties of fillers, such as their behavior under stress and deformation, and their performance over time. These properties are influenced by different crosslinking technologies used in manufacturing.

A literature search identified key studies on the rheological properties of HA fillers, focusing on FDA-approved products and others like Revolax. The review analyzes methodologies and critiques the existing literature to provide a comprehensive understanding of HA fillers' properties. [6]

Medical uses

[edit]

Dermal fillers, also known as "injectables" or "soft-tissue fillers," fill in the area under the skin, and have some non-cosmetic uses, such as non-surgical facial cleft repair or cleft modification, treating fat loss secondary to HIV:[7] Fillers were found to give a temporary acceptable therapeutic effect in HIV‐infected patients with severe facial lipodystrophy caused by highly active antiretroviral therapy.[8][9] A 2009 review concluded that injectable fillers resulted in high satisfaction, but further research was needed to determine safety of its use.[10][11]

Pharmacokinetics

[edit]

Most wrinkle fillers are temporary because they are eventually metabolized by the body. Some people may need more than one injection to achieve the wrinkle-smoothing effect. The effect lasts for about six months. Results depend on health of the skin, skill of the health care provider, and the type of filler used. Regardless of material (whether synthetic or organic) filler duration is highly dependent on amount of activity in the body area where it is injected. Exercise and high intensity activities such as manual labor can stimulate blood flow and shorten the lifespan of fillers.[12]

Side effects and risks

[edit]

Risks of an improperly performed dermal filler procedure commonly include bruising, redness, pain, or itching. Less commonly, there may be infections or allergic reactions, which may cause scarring and lumps that may require surgical correction.[13] In 2024, a cluster of HIV infections was described amongst clients receiving microneedling facials at a spa.[14] More rarely, serious adverse effects such as blindness due to retrograde (opposite the direction of normal blood flow) embolization into the ophthalmic and retinal arteries can occur.[15] Delayed skin necrosis can also occur as a complication of embolization.[16] Embolic complications are more frequently seen when autologous fat is used as a filler, followed by hyaluronic acid. Though rare, when vision loss does occur, it is usually permanent.[17]

Society and culture

[edit]

In the US, fillers are approved as medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the injection is prescribed and performed by a provider. What defines a qualified dermal injection provider varies by country and is a point of debate between board-certified doctors and injectors who operate under cosmetic or aesthetician licenses.[citation needed]

Fillers are not to be confused with neurotoxins such as Botox. Fillers are not approved for certain parts of the body where they can be unsafe, including the penis.[18] In the European Economic Area and the UK, fillers are non-prescription medical devices that can be injected by anyone licensed to do so by the respective medical authorities. They require a CE mark, which regulates adherence to production standards, but does not require any demonstration of medical efficacy. As a result, there are over 140 injectable fillers in the UK/European market and only six approved for use in the US.[19] In China, the market of cosmetic surgery increase in recent 10 years, NMPA (formerly CFDA) also has issued several guidance to regulate injectable filler.[20]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Injectable filler

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Injectable fillers, commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers, are gel-like implants injected beneath the skin to restore lost volume, smooth wrinkles and creases, and enhance or hand contours affected by aging or other conditions. These substances, which may be temporary or semi-permanent, are biodegradable in most cases and work by plumping targeted areas such as the lips, cheeks, nasolabial folds, or scars, providing a fuller and more youthful appearance without invasive . Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1981, they are among the most common minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, with millions performed annually to address moderate to severe lines and volume deficits. Dermal fillers are categorized by their primary materials, which determine their longevity, texture, and suitability for specific applications. Temporary fillers, the most widely used, include (HA), a naturally occurring in the body that typically lasts 6 to 12 months, with some formulations up to 24 months; calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), found in bones and lasting about 12 months; and poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), a synthetic stimulator effective for up to 2 years. Semi-permanent options like fat grafting, harvested from the patient's body, endure 1 to 2 years, while permanent fillers such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) microspheres provide long-term results but carry higher risks and are less reversible. Many formulations incorporate lidocaine to minimize injection discomfort, and they are regulated as Class III devices requiring FDA premarket approval to ensure safety and efficacy for approved indications. The procedure is typically outpatient, lasting 15 to 60 minutes, and involves a qualified healthcare provider using fine needles to inject the filler into predetermined sites after applying a topical numbing agent. Patients may experience mild bruising, swelling, or redness for a few days, with full results visible within 1 to 2 weeks, though complete settling may take up to 3 weeks as any initial inflammation subsides. Maintenance injections are often necessary for temporary fillers to sustain effects, and while effective for early signs of aging, they do not halt the underlying aging process or substitute for surgical interventions like facelifts in cases of significant sagging. Despite their popularity, injectable fillers carry potential risks, including common side effects like , , or allergic reactions, as well as rare but serious complications such as vascular occlusion leading to skin necrosis, vision impairment, or if injected into blood vessels. The FDA emphasizes choosing board-certified providers and FDA-approved products to mitigate adverse events, which occur in less than 1% of cases but underscore the importance of proper technique and patient screening, particularly for those with bleeding disorders or immune deficiencies. Ongoing research continues to refine filler formulations for improved safety and durability.

History and Development

Origins and Early Uses

The origins of injectable fillers trace back to the late , when early attempts at soft tissue augmentation relied on rudimentary materials and techniques. In 1893, German surgeon Franz Neuber pioneered the use of autologous fat grafts harvested from the arm to fill facial scars and depressions, marking one of the first documented approaches to augmentation using autologous fat grafts. This method, though innovative, faced challenges with graft survival and resorption, limiting its reliability. Shortly thereafter, in 1899, Austrian surgeon Robert Gersuny introduced injections for cosmetic enhancement, initially for testicular prostheses and later for facial and nasal augmentation, as it was inexpensive and readily available. Paraffin gained popularity in the early for correcting deformities from or , but its use was short-lived due to severe complications including migration of the material under the skin, into the bloodstream, and formation of granulomas known as paraffinomas. By the 1910s, reports of persistent fistulas, infections, and even pulmonary issues led to widespread abandonment of paraffin injections. Following , the demand for reconstructive procedures spurred renewed interest in injectables, particularly for treating war-related disfigurements and cosmetic enhancements. In the 1940s, liquid emerged as a promising agent, first used in for among sex workers seeking to appeal to American soldiers, and soon adopted in the United States for reconstruction. By the 1950s and 1960s, injections proliferated for facial contouring, scar revision, and body augmentation, with medical-grade formulations like Dow Corning's MDX4-4011 introduced in 1965. However, uncontrolled use of industrial-grade often resulted in dire outcomes, including migration, chronic inflammation, and silicone granulomas (siliconomas) that caused nodularity and ulceration. These complications, exacerbated by off-label applications, prompted early regulatory scrutiny; in 1964, the U.S. (FDA) classified injectable as a new requiring approval, and by the late 1960s, it issued warnings against its general use due to safety concerns, effectively restricting it to investigational purposes. The 1970s brought a shift toward biologically compatible materials with the development of bovine injectables, aimed at addressing limitations of prior agents. Researchers, including Perry Robins and colleagues, conducted initial trials in the mid- using purified bovine dermal for revision, pits, and defects, recognizing its potential to integrate with human tissue. Zyderm I, the first such product, underwent clinical testing from 1977 to 1978 and was FDA-approved in 1981 for cosmetic and therapeutic uses like wrinkle correction and tissue augmentation. Despite requiring skin testing for allergies and offering temporary results due to resorption, bovine represented a safer alternative, though challenges like reactions persisted. These early applications laid foundational medical uses but highlighted the need for longer-lasting, less reactive fillers, setting the stage for innovations like hyaluronic acid-based products in the .

Modern Advancements and Milestones

The introduction of (HA) fillers marked a significant advancement in the late , offering a biocompatible alternative to earlier materials with reduced risk of adverse reactions. , the first non-animal stabilized HA filler, was approved in in 1996 and received U.S. FDA approval in 2003 for the treatment of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds. This approval represented a pivotal milestone, as HA's natural presence in the minimized compared to prior animal-derived options. In the early , innovations in cross-linking HA molecules enhanced filler durability, extending effects from months to up to a year or more by resisting enzymatic degradation. This technology, using agents like 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether, was refined in products like , leading to FDA approvals for broader applications. Juvederm, another cross-linked HA filler, gained FDA approval in for similar indications, further solidifying HA's role in due to its reversibility with . These developments addressed limitations of non-cross-linked HA, which degraded too rapidly for practical use. The saw expansions into fillers for deeper tissue support, with calcium hydroxylapatite-based Radiesse receiving FDA approval in 2006 for moderate to severe folds, providing both immediate volume and stimulation. Similarly, poly-L-lactic acid filler was FDA-approved in 2004 initially for HIV-related lipoatrophy, later extended cosmetically for gradual volume restoration through neocollagenesis. These semi-permanent options improved outcomes in structural rejuvenation, offering longevity beyond traditional HA. Recent milestones through 2025 have focused on refining HA formulations for enhanced performance and safety. Allergan's Vycross , introduced in 2013 with Juvederm Voluma XC's FDA approval, utilizes a low-hydrodynamic cross-linking ratio to reduce post-injection swelling while maintaining lift and duration. By 2022, launched advanced HA lines with improved longevity and natural integration. In May 2023, the FDA approved Eyelight, the first HA filler specifically for moderate to severe under-eye hollows using NASHA technology for up to 18 months of effect. In November 2025, the FDA approved for enhancement of the chin profile, expanding options for facial contouring. Ongoing studies have validated combination therapies, such as HA with neuromodulators like , for synergistic anti-aging effects with minimal complications. A key shift in modern filler development has been from animal-derived collagens, which carried risks requiring skin testing, to synthetic, bacterially fermented HA, virtually eliminating reactions and broadening accessibility. This transition, accelerating post-2003 FDA approvals, underscores a commitment to safety, informed by historical precedents like early 20th-century paraffin injections that caused severe complications such as .

Types and Materials

Hyaluronic Acid-Based Fillers

(HA) is a naturally occurring , a linear composed of repeating units of D-glucuronic acid and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, found in the of human connective tissues. This structure contributes to its high water-binding capacity and viscoelastic properties, making it ideal for augmentation. A prominent variant is non-animal stabilized HA (NASHA), produced through bacterial of equi to avoid animal-derived impurities and reduce risks. NASHA undergoes stabilization to improve resistance to enzymatic degradation while maintaining . To enhance durability, HA fillers are cross-linked, typically using diglycidyl ether (BDDE), which forms covalent bonds between HA chains, increasing , cohesivity, and longevity to approximately 6-18 months . This process, conducted under controlled standards including microbial fermentation and purification, results in gels with HA concentrations ranging from 20-24 mg/mL, tailored for injectability and tissue integration. Representative products illustrate these properties: , a biphasic NASHA gel with particle sizes of 200-300 μm, suits superficial to mid-dermal placement for volume restoration. Juvederm employs a monophasic, smoother Hylacross or Vycross cross-linked formulation at 24 mg/mL, providing a homogeneous ideal for lip enhancement due to its spreadability. Belotero features a cohesive polydensified matrix (CPM) for finer tissue integration, enabling precise correction of fine perioral lines. Teoxane's RHA line employs resilient HA with reduced cross-linking (e.g., RHA 2, 3, 4 at 15-23 mg/mL), designed for dynamic facial expressions and lasting 12-22 months. These fillers offer key advantages, including high from HA's endogenous presence, reversibility via enzyme injection to hydrolyze HA bonds, and low due to minimal residual cross-linker traces post-purification. In contrast to fillers, HA-based options generally provide longer duration without requiring skin testing for allergies.

Collagen and Other Biodegradable Fillers

Collagen-based injectable fillers were among the earliest biodegradable options for augmentation, primarily derived from or sources to mimic the body's natural . Bovine collagen, the first widely approved type, consists of 95% type I and 5% type III extracted from bovine and formulated into gels for . Zyderm, introduced in 1981 as the inaugural FDA-approved cosmetic filler, required pre-injection testing to screen for allergies, as affected approximately 3% of patients due to its xenogeneic origin. The effects of bovine collagen fillers typically last 3-6 months, after which the material is resorbed, necessitating repeated treatments. To address allergy risks associated with bovine sources, -derived collagen fillers emerged in the early . CosmoDerm, an allogeneic product sourced from fibroblast cultures, eliminates the need for skin testing by matching protein sequences more closely, reducing to near zero. Similarly, recombinant collagen, produced via in yeast or plant systems to replicate type I or III collagen, further avoids allergic reactions while offering and tunable properties for injection. These formulations degrade primarily through enzymatic by collagenases and matrix metalloproteinases, breaking down the protein into peptides and that are metabolized by the body. Beyond protein-based options, other biodegradable fillers include synthetic polymers that stimulate neocollagenesis rather than providing immediate volume. Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), as in , comprises microparticles (40-63 μm in diameter) suspended in a carrier ; these particles induce activity to produce new over several months, offering pure stimulation for very natural results but typically requiring multiple sessions, with effects persisting up to 2 years as the PLLA hydrolyzes into and is excreted. (PCL), used in Ellansé for immediate minor filling plus long-term collagen stimulation with strong support, features microspheres (25-50 μm) in a carboxymethylcellulose that resorb gradually via over 1-4 years, depending on the formulation variant, while promoting sustained tissue remodeling. Another example is AestheFill, a poly-D,L-lactic acid (PDLLA)-based filler that induces sustained collagen regeneration over 24-36 months. These polymer-based biodegradables degrade through non-enzymatic , where molecules cleave ester bonds, contrasting with the enzymatic pathways of . The popularity of collagen and similar biodegradable fillers waned in the post-2000s era, largely supplanted by hyaluronic acid-based alternatives that offer superior safety profiles without allergy testing and greater ease of use due to reversibility with . Bovine , in particular, saw reduced adoption owing to its shorter duration and concerns, though and recombinant variants, along with PLLA and PCL, retain niche applications for collagen stimulation in patients seeking natural-appearing, gradual enhancements.

Semi-Permanent and Permanent Fillers

Semi-permanent and permanent injectable fillers are designed to provide prolonged restoration and tissue augmentation, distinguishing them from temporary options by their partial or complete resistance to natural degradation. These materials typically incorporate non-biodegradable components that integrate with host tissues over time, offering effects that can last beyond 12 months or indefinitely. However, their longevity comes with trade-offs in reversibility and safety, prompting stricter regulatory oversight compared to fully resorbable fillers. Calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), marketed as Radiesse, consists of smooth, microscopic CaHA microspheres suspended in a biocompatible gel carrier, primarily composed of carboxymethylcellulose. This formulation provides immediate structural support upon injection while stimulating neocollagenesis as the gel carrier is absorbed, leading to gradual replacement by the patient's own . The effects typically endure 12 to 18 months, making it suitable for correcting moderate to severe facial folds, such as nasolabial creases, and restoring volume in areas like the cheeks or jawline. Radiesse received FDA approval in 2006 for subdermal implantation to smooth wrinkles and folds in the face, with later clearance for hand augmentation. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), available as Bellafill, features non-absorbable PMMA microspheres (approximately 30-50 micrometers in diameter) embedded in an 80% matrix derived from bovine sources, which temporarily provides volume until fibrotic encapsulation occurs around the microspheres. This permanent implant is intended for long-term correction, with effects persisting for five years or more in many cases, as the resorbs and the PMMA particles remain integrated into the tissue. Bellafill was FDA-approved in specifically for the correction of nasolabial folds in immunocompetent adults over 21 years old, and in 2014 for atrophic scars. Silicone oil or gel, once used as a permanent filler for soft tissue augmentation since the mid-20th century, involves injecting viscous polydimethylsiloxane to achieve enduring volume enhancement. Historical applications included facial contouring and wrinkle correction, but widespread complications led to its discontinuation in regulated markets. The FDA banned injectable silicone products in 1992 due to severe adverse events, including widespread migration of the material to distant sites like the lungs or lymph nodes, chronic inflammation, and disfiguring granulomas. Polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG), such as Aquamid, is a non-particulate, hydrophilic comprising 2.5-3% cross-linked and 97.5% water, forming a stable matrix that integrates with surrounding tissues for semi-permanent volume retention. It is injected to address deep wrinkles, , and defects, with effects lasting several years as the water content equilibrates with body fluids. Aquamid is approved and commonly used in , , the , and for aesthetic and reconstructive purposes but remains unavailable in the United States due to lack of FDA approval. These fillers present unique challenges, including their non-reversibility, which precludes simple enzymatic dissolution unlike hyaluronic acid-based temporary fillers, often requiring surgical excision for correction or removal. They carry an elevated risk of late-onset granulomatous reactions, where responses form inflammatory nodules months to years post-injection, particularly with PMMA and PAAG. Regulatory restrictions are stringent; for instance, permanent options like are prohibited in many countries, while semi-permanent fillers like Aquamid face approval barriers in the U.S. due to concerns over long-term and complication rates.

Clinical Applications

Cosmetic Procedures

Injectable fillers are widely used in cosmetic procedures to address signs of aging by restoring and smoothing static wrinkles, which are visible at rest due to loss of subcutaneous fat and . These treatments primarily target areas affected by volume depletion, such as the midface and perioral regions, offering non-surgical alternatives to facelifts with minimal downtime. (HA)-based fillers and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) are commonly employed for their and ability to provide immediate results lasting 6 to 24 months, depending on the product and injection site. A primary application is the treatment of static wrinkles, including nasolabial folds and lines, where HA or CaHA fillers are injected to plump the skin and elevate depressed areas, reducing the appearance of folds that deepen with age. For nasolabial folds, HA fillers like or Juvederm are favored for their soft integration into the , while CaHA (e.g., Radiesse) provides structural support for deeper folds due to its higher and collagen-stimulating properties. Lip augmentation and cheek enhancement further utilize these fillers to improve facial contouring and restore volume in aging skin, where natural hyaluronic acid depletion leads to thinning lips and hollow cheeks; jawline enhancement employs HA fillers to add volume and definition along the jaw and chin, achieving a sculpted, angular appearance ideal for weak or recessed jaws. HA fillers are injected into the vermilion border for fuller lips and into the malar region for lifted cheeks, enhancing symmetry and youthful proportions without altering bone structure. Subtle facial reshaping is achieved through non-surgical and tear trough filling, using small volumes of HA fillers to correct minor dorsal humps or add projection to the , and to fill the under-eye hollows that cause dark circles and a fatigued look. These procedures employ low-viscosity HA products like Belotero for precise placement in delicate areas, minimizing risks like vascular occlusion. Fillers are often combined with neuromodulators like Botox to address both static and dynamic wrinkles, where Botox relaxes muscle-induced lines (e.g., creases) and fillers provide volumetric support for persistent static folds, yielding a more comprehensive rejuvenation. This synergistic approach enhances outcomes by targeting multiple aging mechanisms simultaneously. Patient selection for cosmetic filler procedures emphasizes individuals aged 30 to 60 with moderate volume loss and good elasticity, as those with thinner skin or severe laxity may require alternative treatments. Skin type influences filler choice—thicker fillers for oily skin and softer ones for dry or sensitive types—to optimize integration and reduce complications. Typical sessions involve 1-2 mL of filler per treatment area, tailored to facial and goals for natural-looking results.

Reconstructive and Therapeutic Uses

Injectable fillers play a significant role in reconstructive , particularly for restoring volume and function in patients with medical conditions. In the treatment of facial lipoatrophy associated with human immunodeficiency virus (), poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and (HA) fillers are commonly used to address volume loss caused by antiretroviral therapy. PLLA, approved by the FDA for this indication, stimulates production to gradually restore contours, with studies demonstrating sustained improvements in appearance and over 1-2 years following multiple sessions. HA fillers provide immediate volume restoration and are effective for milder cases, showing significant reduction in lipoatrophy severity scores in HIV-positive patients treated with cross-linked formulations. These interventions help mitigate the psychological impact of , with long-term follow-up indicating durable results when combined with proper dilution and injection techniques. For scar revision, injectable fillers are employed alongside subcision to elevate and fill atrophic scars from acne or surgical trauma, improving skin texture and contour. Subcision involves releasing fibrotic bands beneath the scar, followed by HA filler injection to support the elevated tissue and promote collagen remodeling; clinical trials report up to 50-70% improvement in scar depth and appearance after combined therapy. In acne scarring, HA-based fillers are injected into depressed or atrophic scars, such as rolling or boxcar types, to add volume, smooth the skin surface, and improve appearance; results are immediate but temporary (6–18 months) and are often combined with laser resurfacing, skin boosters, or subcision for optimal improvement, with evidence from randomized studies showing better efficacy when integrated with microneedling or laser resurfacing. Permanent fillers are rarely used due to risks such as chronic inflammation and irreversibility. For surgical scars, such as those from trauma or prior operations, fillers like calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) offer structural support, reducing visibility and achieving smoother integration with surrounding tissue over 6-12 months. Vocal cord augmentation using CaHA fillers is a standard therapeutic approach for unilateral vocal fold paralysis, which can result from nerve damage due to , , or trauma. CaHA, injected percutaneously or endoscopically, provides immediate medialization of the paralyzed fold to improve glottic closure, voice quality, and swallowing function. Twelve-month follow-up studies confirm sustained phonatory benefits, with voice handicap index scores improving by 40-60% in most patients, though efficacy may wane after 18-24 months requiring repeat injections. This is particularly valuable for patients unfit for surgical , offering low complication rates and rapid recovery. In orthopedics, intra-articular HA injections, known as viscosupplementation, are widely used to alleviate in by supplementing and reducing joint friction. Administered as 1-5 weekly injections, HA restores viscoelastic properties, with meta-analyses showing small pain relief (approximately 2% reduction on visual analog scales, or -2 mm on a 100 mm scale) and improved function lasting 6-12 months compared to . However, recent meta-analyses (as of 2022) indicate the effect is small and clinically equivalent to in some assessments, with guidelines recommending it as an adjunct rather than primary therapy. This therapy is especially beneficial for mild-to-moderate , delaying the need for in select patients, and is supported by guidelines from societies as a safe adjunct to and analgesics. For pediatric cleft lip and palate repair, injectable HA fillers address residual volume deficiencies and asymmetries in secondary reconstructions, enhancing lip projection and nasal base support. Cross-linked HA is injected to correct vermilion deficits or scar contractures post-surgical repair, with case series reporting improved facial harmony and no major complications in children as young as 5 years. Patient and parent satisfaction is high, with studies indicating over 90% positive outcomes in aesthetic and functional improvements during follow-up periods of 6-12 months, though repeat treatments may be needed as the child grows. This approach serves as a noninvasive bridge to definitive , minimizing psychological distress in affected youth.

Administration and Procedure

Preparation and Injection Techniques

Prior to administering injectable fillers, a thorough pre-procedure evaluation is essential to ensure and optimal outcomes. This includes a comprehensive review of the patient's , focusing on allergies—particularly to components like in non-hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, which may require skin testing 4-6 weeks in advance—and conditions such as bleeding disorders or active skin infections that could contraindicate the procedure. Additionally, imaging techniques like are increasingly employed as a standard practice for vascular mapping in high-risk areas to identify arteries and veins, reducing the potential for intravascular injection. Anesthesia options are selected based on the treatment area and patient comfort. Topical anesthetics, such as EMLA cream applied 30-60 minutes prior, or ice packs provide superficial numbing for delicate sites like the . Many modern HA-based fillers are premixed with for immediate analgesia during injection, while regional blocks (e.g., infraorbital) may be used for deeper or more sensitive regions. The skin is cleansed with alcohol or solutions immediately before injection to minimize . Fillers are then delivered using fine-gauge needles (typically 27-30G for precision and reduced trauma) or blunt-tipped cannulas (e.g., 25-27G), which offer lower vascular occlusion by allowing easier navigation through tissues after a small entry puncture with a needle. Common techniques include serial puncture for superficial lines, where multiple small deposits are placed along the ; linear threading for nasolabial folds, involving continuous advancement of the needle while injecting; and fanning or cross-hatching for volumetric enhancement in areas like the cheeks, distributing filler in a radial pattern. Injections should be performed slowly with minimal pressure, aspirating the first to check for blood return, and monitoring for signs of vascular compromise such as blanching. Placement is tailored to tissue layers for natural results: superficial dermal injections address fine wrinkles, mid-dermal for moderate rhytides, deep dermal or subcutaneous for folds, and supraperiosteal for mid-face volume restoration. HA fillers, for instance, are suited to these depths due to their viscoelastic properties. Dosage guidelines emphasize conservative application to avoid overcorrection, typically ranging from 0.5-1.5 mL per treatment area, with layering techniques—starting deep and building superficially—allowing gradual assessment and adjustment during the session. Total volumes depend on the site (e.g., 0.5-1 mL for , up to 1.5 mL per cheek) and filler , always prioritizing the minimal effective amount.

Post-Procedure Care and Duration

Following the administration of injectable fillers, recovery is typically minimal, with most patients able to resume normal activities immediately. However, to reduce the risks of swelling, bruising, or filler migration, patients should avoid intense physical activity, excessive heat (such as saunas), alcohol consumption, aspirin or NSAIDs, massages, smoking, prolonged sun exposure, and active skincare products for 24-48 hours. Immediate post-procedure care focuses on minimizing swelling, bruising, and potential displacement of the material. Patients should apply ice packs intermittently to the treated areas for 10-15 minutes at a time during the first 24 hours to reduce and discomfort. Gentle massage may be used to manage swelling, bruising, or lumps, but direct pressure, rubbing, or vigorous massaging of the injection sites should be avoided for 24-48 hours to prevent migration or . Swelling and bruising are common side effects, with facial swelling (edema) typically lasting 2–7 days. It often peaks within 24–72 hours and mostly resolves within 3–5 days, though minor swelling may persist up to a week. Duration varies by procedure type, injection site, individual response, and aftercare; for more invasive procedures (e.g., lipofilling), it may last up to 10 days or longer. Patients should monitor for signs of adverse reactions and contact a physician if swelling persists or worsens beyond a week, or if experiencing rare serious symptoms such as visual disturbances accompanied by pain. For longer-term maintenance, patients are advised to protect the treated skin from excessive sun exposure by using broad-spectrum with SPF 30 or higher daily, as can accelerate filler degradation. Avoidance of extreme temperatures, such as saunas or very cold environments, helps preserve the filler's integrity over time. A follow-up appointment typically occurs around two weeks post-procedure to assess results, address any concerns, and ensure proper healing. The duration of injectable fillers varies based on several factors, including the type of material used. Hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers generally last 6-12 months, while calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) fillers provide effects for 12-18 months. Injection site influences longevity, with areas of high movement like the lips typically requiring touch-ups sooner (6-9 months) compared to static regions like the cheeks (up to 12-18 months). Individual factors such as metabolic rate and physical activity level also play a role, with faster metabolism or vigorous exercise potentially shortening results. Touch-up treatments are commonly scheduled every 6-24 months to maintain , depending on the filler type and needs. Fillers that stimulate production, such as CaHA, may yield cumulative benefits with repeated applications, enhancing long-term tissue support. In cases of overcorrection or complications with HA fillers, reversal can be achieved using , an enzyme that enzymatically dissolves the material, typically administered via injection with effects beginning within hours.

Pharmacology

Mechanism of Action

Injectable fillers exert their effects through interactions with dermal tissues, primarily by restoring volume and promoting biological responses that enhance structure. These mechanisms vary by filler type, encompassing immediate physical augmentation and longer-term stimulation of endogenous tissue repair. At the biological level, fillers integrate with the (ECM) to support tissue remodeling, while certain formulations leverage enzymatic processes for controlled degradation. Hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers achieve immediate volume restoration via physical filling, where the hydrophilic nature of crosslinked HA gels allows them to absorb and retain , expanding to occupy space in the . HA can bind up to 1000 times its weight in , leading to gel swelling post-injection that provides structural support and hydrates surrounding tissues. This expansion occurs due to the polymer's affinity for molecules, which diffuse into the gel network, resulting in a volumetric increase that smooths wrinkles and augments contours without relying on new tissue formation. In contrast, biostimulatory fillers such as poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) induce neocollagenesis by activating , promoting the synthesis of new over weeks to months. PLLA microparticles trigger a controlled response, stimulating fibroblast proliferation and deposition as the material hydrolyzes gradually. Similarly, CaHA microspheres directly contact and activate fibroblasts, increasing type III expression by up to 123% within 24 hours and by 124% after 72 hours, thereby fostering long-term tissue volumization. These processes differ from temporary fillers, which primarily provide bulk through displacement, whereas biostimulators emphasize endogenous repair via scaffold-like structures that guide ECM remodeling. Tissue integration occurs as fillers form a supportive within the ECM, facilitating migration and reorganization for enhanced dermal architecture. For instance, CaHA's spherical particles serve as a degradable framework that encourages neocollagenesis and matrix deposition during breakdown. HA fillers also integrate by hydrating and stabilizing the ECM, promoting mild activation without significant inflammation. This scaffold effect supports gradual tissue remodeling, improving skin elasticity and volume sustainability. The reversibility of HA fillers stems from their enzymatic degradation by , endogenous enzymes that the glycosidic bonds in HA chains, allowing for rapid dissolution if needed. This process typically begins within hours of hyaluronidase injection, breaking down the gel into smaller, absorbable fragments that are cleared from the tissue. Unlike biostimulatory options, which lack this enzymatic vulnerability and persist through gradual hydrolysis or encapsulation, HA's degradability enables precise adjustments or reversal of effects.

Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism

Injectable fillers are primarily designed for localized action, with most materials exhibiting high retention at the injection site and minimal systemic absorption. For (HA)-based fillers, systemic absorption is negligible due to their large molecular size and hydrophilic nature that limits diffusion beyond the . Tissue integration contributes to initial retention, as the filler binds to components shortly after injection. Metabolism of these fillers varies by composition and occurs through enzymatic and cellular processes without significant . HA fillers, the most common type, are hydrolyzed by endogenous hyaluronidases into smaller oligosaccharides, ultimately degrading to and via . Collagen-based fillers undergo by matrix metalloproteinases and other proteases, breaking down into that are incorporated into normal protein synthesis or further metabolized. Calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) particles are primarily cleared via macrophage , with gradual dissolution into calcium and phosphate ions over approximately 12 months through lysosomal degradation. Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) microspheres are hydrolyzed into monomers, which enter the Krebs cycle and are eliminated as and . Half-life and persistence differ markedly among filler types, reflecting their degradation kinetics. Non-cross-linked HA has a short of 2-4 weeks due to rapid enzymatic breakdown, while cross-linked variants extend to 6-18 months. fillers typically persist for 3-6 months, CaHA for 12-18 months, and PLLA up to 2 years as its effects rely on gradual neocollagenesis following microsphere degradation. Metabolites from all biodegradable fillers are excreted primarily via lymphatic drainage to regional nodes and renal clearance in , ensuring complete elimination without residue. Several - and procedure-related factors influence filler . Advanced age is associated with slower metabolism due to reduced enzymatic activity and lower , potentially prolonging filler presence. Injection site accelerates degradation through increased enzymatic exposure and mechanical stress, while higher doses can extend duration by overwhelming local clearance mechanisms.

Safety Profile

Common Adverse Effects

The most frequent adverse effects associated with injectable fillers are mild injection-site reactions, including bruising, swelling, and redness, which typically occur immediately after the procedure and resolve within 1 to 7 days. Bruising, resulting from minor vessel trauma during injection, has a reported incidence ranging from 19% to 68% depending on technique and factors such as type and use. Swelling and redness, often due to local or release, with redness affecting approximately 4.5% (95% CI: 1.1-15.9%) and swelling up to 40.7% (95% CI: 22.3-62.1%) of in meta-analyses of fillers. Facial swelling (edema) typically lasts 2–7 days, peaking within 24–72 hours and mostly resolving within 3–5 days, though minor swelling may persist up to a week. Duration varies by procedure type, injection site, individual response, and aftercare. Persistent or worsening swelling beyond a week requires medical consultation. Pain and tenderness at the injection site are common immediately post-procedure, usually subsiding within a few days, and can be managed with application of packs and over-the-counter analgesics such as acetaminophen. or may arise from uneven filler distribution or product clumping, with incidences around 9.4% (95% CI: 2.6-28.8%); these are often addressed through gentle in the initial days or, if persistent, enzymatic dissolution using . For biostimulatory fillers such as calcium hydroxylapatite (e.g., Radiesse) used in skin rejuvenation, inadequate dilution can lead to overfilling, resulting in excessive volumization or uneven results. Itching or reactions are infrequent with contemporary hyaluronic acid-based fillers, occurring in about 0.8% (95% CI: 0.1-3.5%) of cases, and are generally treated with topical antihistamines or corticosteroids. Overall, the majority of these minor effects resolve spontaneously without intervention, in contrast to rare vascular issues that require urgent care.

Serious Complications and Risks

One of the most severe risks associated with injectable fillers is vascular occlusion, which occurs when filler material is inadvertently injected into a , leading to and potential downstream consequences such as tissue ischemia, , or blindness. This complication arises primarily from intra-arterial injection, particularly in high-risk areas like the , nasolabial folds, or periorbital region, with reported incidence rates ranging from 0.001% to 0.05%, or approximately 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 injections depending on technique and filler type. typically presents as immediate blanching or followed by ulceration within hours, while blindness results from retrograde embolization to the , documented in 198 cases globally as of 2024, with (HA) fillers comprising 83% of incidents. Infections represent another critical hazard, often stemming from bacterial during procedures, which can lead to formation or requiring prompt therapy. For instance, cases of virulent have been linked to pathogens like following dermal filler injections, treated successfully with targeted antibiotics such as . Similarly, late-onset subcutaneous by like have been reported after HA injections, manifesting as nodules and necessitating incision, drainage, and antimicrobial treatment. formation on fillers can exacerbate chronic , contributing to persistent inflammatory responses. Poor practices heighten risks in cosmetic injection procedures. Recent studies (2023-2025) continue to report cases of , including (41.4%) and (29.3%) among hospitalized patients with filler complications. Specific to hyaluronic acid filler injections into the nipple base, risks include infection, swelling, allergic reactions, Tyndall effect (bluish discoloration), filler migration or clumping, sensory changes due to delicate tissue, and necrosis, as reported in cosmetic procedure complications. Allergic reactions, though rare in the era of HA-based fillers, can include triggered by components like used for reversal or by residual proteins in non-HA formulations. post-injection is exceptionally uncommon, with incidence below 0.01%, but presents with systemic symptoms like and urticaria, managed via epinephrine and supportive care. In permanent fillers, foreign body granulomas arise from chronic immune responses to non-biodegradable materials, forming inflammatory nodules that may require intralesional steroids or excision. Delayed complications, particularly with permanent fillers like polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or , include nodule formation and material migration, often necessitating surgical intervention. These effects can emerge months to years post-injection due to filler displacement or late , with granulomas reported in up to 21% of PMMA complication cases and migration leading to or . Treatment typically involves surgical excision for non-responsive nodules, as conservative measures like antibiotics or steroids often fail in these scenarios. To mitigate these risks, practitioners employ techniques such as aspiration prior to injection to detect vascular entry, use of blunt-tipped cannulas over —which reduce occlusion rates by minimizing vessel puncture—and immediate implementation of protocols. For HA-related vascular events, high-dose (150–600 IU) is administered promptly to dissolve the filler and restore , often combined with topical or hyperbaric oxygen for enhanced outcomes. These strategies, when followed rigorously, significantly lower the incidence of severe events compared to common minor issues like bruising. In August 2025, an FDA advisory committee meeting emphasized ongoing risks of serious adverse events like and blindness, recommending clearer labeling on unapproved removal methods and caution for off-label applications.

Regulation and Societal Aspects

Global Regulatory Frameworks

Injectable fillers are regulated as devices in most jurisdictions due to their invasive nature and potential risks, with classifications varying based on duration of effect and material composition. Temporary fillers, primarily (HA)-based, are generally approved for augmentation, while permanent options like polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) face stricter scrutiny and limitations. Pre-market requirements typically include rigorous clinical trials to demonstrate and , often involving randomized controlled studies assessing , immunogenicity, and complication rates. Post-market surveillance is mandatory worldwide, involving adverse event reporting systems to monitor long-term outcomes such as delayed or migration. In August 2025, the FDA convened a panel to discuss new indications for dermal fillers, emphasizing ongoing evaluations. In the United States, the (FDA) classifies injectable fillers as medical devices, with temporary HA-based and permanent ones like PMMA under Class III (requiring premarket approval). As of 2025, several HA-based fillers have received FDA approval, including variants from brands such as Juvéderm, , and Belotero, supported by clinical data showing in correction lasting 6-18 months. Approval processes emphasize testing and pivotal trials with hundreds of participants to evaluate injection-site reactions and longevity. In the European Union, dermal fillers are regulated under the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 as Class III devices, requiring CE marking from notified bodies after conformity assessment, including clinical evaluation and post-market clinical follow-up. Numerous HA-based fillers hold CE marks, enabling market access across member states upon demonstration of equivalence to predicates or new clinical data. Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) oversees approvals, classifying most dermal fillers (e.g., hyaluronic acid-based) as medical devices rather than prescription-only medicines (POMs), allowing aesthetic clinics to purchase and stock them directly from suppliers without individual patient prescriptions. MHRA accepts CE marks until 2028 while transitioning to UKCA marking; fillers must comply with similar biocompatibility and vigilance reporting requirements. China's (NMPA) classifies HA dermal fillers as Class III medical devices, approving local variants like those from Huaxi Biological and Bloomage Biotech following technical reviews and clinical trials focused on cross-linking stability and degradation profiles. In contrast, Brazil's Agency (ANVISA) permits certain permanent fillers like PMMA for restorative uses but imposes restrictions on cosmetic applications due to complication risks, requiring registration as advanced health products with mandatory . ’s (TGA) approves temporary HA fillers as medical devices or Schedule 4 medicines but prohibits permanent injectable fillers for aesthetic purposes, citing irreversible adverse effects, with approvals contingent on Australian clinical data or international equivalence. Global harmonization efforts center on standards for , which guide testing for , , and in dermal fillers, ensuring consistent across regions regardless of local classifications. These standards facilitate mutual recognition in approvals, reducing redundant trials while prioritizing through standardized extractables and leachables analysis. Historical approvals, such as the first HA filler in 2003, have informed evolving frameworks emphasizing long-term data. The popularity of injectable fillers has surged since the early 2000s, driven by advancements in minimally invasive aesthetic procedures and shifting societal attitudes toward non-surgical enhancements. , filler injections have seen a 274% increase since 2000, reflecting broader trends in cosmetic medicine. By 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported over 5.3 million filler procedures alone, underscoring fillers' dominance among minimally invasive treatments, which totaled more than 28 million that year. Ethical concerns surrounding injectable fillers often center on over-treatment, which can result in unnatural appearances such as "pillow face," characterized by excessive facial volume and loss of distinct contours due to repeated or voluminous injections. This overfilled syndrome arises from aggressive filler use to counteract aging, leading to rapid and tension, as detailed in anatomical studies of facial aging. remains a critical ethical pillar, with litigation frequently linked to inadequate disclosure of risks like vascular occlusion, , or blindness; in one analysis of legal cases, 91% involved claims of insufficient consent. disparities exacerbate these issues, as socioeconomic barriers limit equitable access to qualified providers, disproportionately affecting lower-income groups who may resort to unregulated or substandard treatments. The global market for dermal fillers reached approximately $4 billion in 2023, with projections indicating steady growth fueled by demand for subtle rejuvenation. Leading companies like (now part of ) and hold significant market share, controlling major hyaluronic acid-based products such as Juvéderm and . Asia-Pacific regions have emerged as key growth areas, with the market valued at over $1 billion in 2024 and expanding at a exceeding 10%, driven by rising interest in non-surgical facial enhancements among younger demographics. Media portrayals significantly influence public perceptions of injectable fillers, with celebrity endorsements promoting idealized results while backlash highlights unnatural outcomes. High-profile figures have popularized fillers through subtle enhancements, yet instances of overfilled appearances—such as those criticized in cases like Lisa Rinna's admissions of regretting excessive use—have sparked debates on authenticity and health risks. This duality has contributed to a shifting trend toward "natural-looking" injections, as social scrutiny amplifies concerns over exaggerated features. Diversity issues persist in the development and application of injectable fillers, with clinical trials historically underrepresenting participants with skin of color, leading to gaps in safety data for ethnic groups. Aesthetic trials show 78.6% white participants on average, with Black/African American and Asian individuals comprising only 17% and 2.2%, respectively, which limits understanding of filler performance across diverse types. This underrepresentation heightens risks for ethnic minorities, as evidenced by limited single-center studies on complications like or formation in darker tones, potentially resulting in inequitable outcomes.

References

  1. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/dermal-fillers-soft-tissue-fillers
  2. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/facial-fillers/about/pac-20394072
  3. https://www.fda.gov/media/147036/download
  4. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/fda-approved-dermal-fillers
  5. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/cosmetic-procedures/dermal-fillers/types
  6. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/cosmetic-procedures/dermal-fillers/recovery
  7. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/cosmetic-procedures/dermal-fillers
  8. https://www.fda.gov/media/146870/download
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3775639/
  10. https://westsideaesthetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/history-injectable-fillers-2009.pdf
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19415573/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6926515_The_first_fillers_vaseline_and_paraffin_From_miracle_to_disaster
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441998/
  14. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037c-a7f9-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  15. https://mdedge.com/cutis/article/104555/aesthetic-dermatology/fillers-dermatology-past-present
  16. https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/34/8/1261/2801401
  17. https://www.galderma.com/news/restylaner-celebrates-25-years-natural-looking-results-its-signature-line-hyaluronic-acid
  18. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf2/P020023b.pdf
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482440/
  20. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17434440.2021.2014320
  21. https://www.drugs.com/history/juvederm.html
  22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/der2.190
  23. https://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Documents/Updates_in_Aesthetic_Surgery_0512_Article.18.pdf
  24. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/how-to-use-fillers-for-facial-rejuvenation
  25. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/allergan-receives-fda-approval-of-juvederm-voluma-xc-for-mid-face-injection-via-cannula-300910378.html
  26. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/hyaluronic-acid-filler-procedure-537011
  27. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/restylane-eyelight-p040024s135
  28. https://www.galderma.com/news/galderma-receives-us-fda-approval-restylane-lyft
  29. https://www.cnplasticsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/injectable_safety__new_concepts_and_best_practices.5.pdf
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/16/19/2739
  31. https://www.fda.gov/media/158489/download
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11479139/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5966713/
  34. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2280800019867075
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2544360/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5021061/
  37. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/2347-9264.2020.121
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2686337/
  39. https://karger.com/books/book/324/chapter/5512481/History-of-Fillers
  40. https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0029-1220650
  41. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/p800022s050c.pdf
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/15/4/1020
  43. https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/38/suppl_1/S13/4961046
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685142/
  45. https://www.medyglobal.com/en/products/aesthefill/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7065466/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19415578/
  48. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/p050037c.pdf
  49. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P020012
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8120553/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2740603/
  52. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/be-aware-of-the-risks-and-complications-of-silicone-fillers
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4199851/
  54. https://plasticsurgerykey.com/aquamid/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311355/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3047734/
  57. https://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/procedure-learning-center/non-surgical/injectable-fillers-guide/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10413051/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2544361/
  60. https://www.asds.net/skin-experts/skin-treatments/injectables/injectable-hyaluronic-acid
  61. https://dermartisan.com/dermal-fillers-explained-from-lip-enhancements-to-facial-balancing/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11634383/
  63. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22880-nonsurgical-rhinoplasty-nose-job
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7881997/
  65. https://www.cangelloplasticsurgery.com/non-surgical/tear-trough-filler/
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16784517/
  67. https://www.cascadeface.com/benefits-combining-botox-dermal-fillers/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7152505/
  69. https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/28/3/335/268747
  70. https://illumeaesthetics.com/blog/how-much-filler-do-i-need-by-treatment-area/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10733075/
  72. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-069722
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2840909/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11928312/
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962225022169
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10541169/
  77. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/articles/what-not-to-do-after-getting-facial-filler
  78. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/dermal-filler-dos-and-donts-wrinkles-lips-and-more
  79. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/what-can-you-do-to-help-your-injectable-fillers-last-longer
  80. https://www.aad.org/public/cosmetic/wrinkles/fillers-faqs
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7822713/
  82. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/how-long-do-dermal-fillers-last
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4295857/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10836581/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9029726/
  86. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S144282
  87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15521
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36988471/
  89. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12102372
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11093662/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7954032/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11025388/
  93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507871/
  94. https://journals.lww.com/dermatologicsurgery/fulltext/2021/02000/preventing_and_treating_adverse_events_of.16.aspx
  95. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.15471
  96. https://www.cureus.com/articles/148694-adverse-events-reported-from-hyaluronic-acid-dermal-filler-injections-to-the-facial-region-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693750/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3865975/
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40167411/
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33377939/
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21053422/
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39286952/
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38260874/
  104. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.16733
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7061554/
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35880635/
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262634/
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26735450/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4728901/
  110. https://www.scielo.br/j/rbcp/a/Mw9WBCbdrg4RK3gLsxjwXRg/?format=pdf&lang=en
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5300719/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8211329/
  113. https://www.fda.gov/media/147045/download
  114. https://www.fda.gov/media/188185/download
  115. https://www.fda.gov/media/147037/download
  116. https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/updated-meeting-time-and-public-participation-information-august-13-2025-general-and-plastic-surgery
  117. https://www.hcplive.com/view/fda-approval-announced-2-new-injectable-hyaluronic-acid-dermal-filler-gels
  118. https://e-fillers.com/blog/ce-marked-vs-fda-approved-aesthetic-products
  119. https://www.aestheticsbeautyconnect.com/blog/medical-aesthetics-regulations-europe-uk-compliance-guide-2025
  120. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulating-medical-devices-in-the-uk
  121. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-future-regulation-of-medical-devices-in-the-united-kingdom/outcome/chapter-1-scope-of-the-regulations
  122. https://baipharm.chemlinked.com/news/nmpa-approved-injectable-fillers-in-chinas-market
  123. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/%25E5%258F%25AF%25E5%258F%25AF-%25E5%258A%25A2%25E8%25BF%25AA-b4a3582b9_nmpa-china-medical-aesthetics-approval-activity-7333417734556319744-m_pw
  124. https://www.iso.org/standard/68936.html
  125. https://www.fda.gov/media/142959/download
  126. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/application-information/guidance-documents/guidance-document-preparation-premarket-medical-device-licence-amendment.html
  127. https://www.drmmacdonald.com/blog/medical-aesthetics-by-the-numbers-a-data-driven-look-at-cosmetic-enhancements
  128. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/news/statistics/2024/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2024.pdf
  129. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.16244
  130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31493376/
  131. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dermal-fillers-market-size-worth-7-58-billion-globally-by-2031-growing-at-8-3-cagr--exclusive-report-by-the-insight-partners-302387453.html
  132. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/dermal-fillers-market-share-analysis
  133. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/asia-pacific-dermal-fillers-market-12638
  134. https://www.usmagazine.com/stylish/news/lisa-rinna-admits-fillers-were-not-good-for-her/
  135. https://modernaesthetics.com/ma-issues-index/2023-sept-oct/diversity-in-aesthetic-clinical-trials/35310/
  136. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.15688
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.