Hyaluronic acid fillers with cohesive polydensified matrix for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation: a literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cohesive monophasic polydensified fillers show unique viscoelastic properties and variable density of hyaluronic acid, allowing for a homogeneous tissue integration and distribution of the material. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to review the clinical data regarding the performance, tolerability, and safety of the Belotero(®) fillers for soft-tissue augmentation and rejuvenation. METHODS: A literature search was performed up until May 31, 2015 to identify all relevant articles on Belotero(®) fillers (Basic/Balance, Hydro, Soft, Intense, Volume) and equivalent products (Esthélis(®), Mesolis(®), Fortélis(®), Modélis(®)). RESULTS: This comprehensive review included 26 papers. Findings from three randomized controlled trials showed a greater reduction in nasolabial fold severity with Belotero(®) Basic/Balance than with collagen (at 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks, n=118) and Restylane(®) (at 4 weeks, n=40), and higher patient satisfaction with Belotero(®) Intense than with Perlane(®) (at 2 weeks, n=20). With Belotero(®) Basic/Balance, an improvement of at least 1 point on the severity scale can be expected in ~80% of patients 1-6 months after injection, with an effect still visible at 8-12 months. Positive findings were also reported with Belotero(®) Volume (no reduction in hyaluronic acid volume at 12 months, as demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging), Soft (improvement in the esthetic outcomes when used in a sequential approach), and Hydro (improvement in skin appearance in all patients). The most common adverse effects were mild-to-moderate erythema, edema, and hematoma, most of which were temporary. There were no reports of Tyndall effect, nodules, granulomas, or tissue necrosis. CONCLUSION: Clinical evidence indicates sustainable esthetic effects, good safety profile, and long-term tolerability of the Belotero(®) fillers, particularly Belotero(®) Basic/Balance and Intense.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it