Efficacy and Safety of a New Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Filler in the Correction of Moderate-to-Severe Dynamic Perioral Rhytides: A 52-Week Prospective, Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The perioral region is highly mobile and subject to multifactorial changes during aging. Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Redensity (RHAR), an RHA filler, was developed with the aim of optimizing outcomes in dynamic facial areas. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical study aimed to demonstrate superiority of RHAR over no-treatment control for correction of moderate-to-severe dynamic perioral rhytides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blinded live evaluator assessments of efficacy included improvement in perioral rhytides severity using a proprietary scale (Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale [PR-SRS]) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Subjects self-assessed their results with FACE-Q, a validated patient-reported outcome measure, and satisfaction scales. Safety was monitored throughout the study based on common treatment responses (CTRs) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was achieved, with the treatment group showing statistically significant superiority over the control group at Week 8 (80.7% vs 7.8% responder rate by PR-SRS, p < .0001). Most patients (66%) were still responders at Week 52 (study completion). Most AEs were CTRs after perioral injection of a dermal filler, and none was a clinically significant treatment-related AE. CONCLUSION: Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Redensity is effective and safe for the correction of dynamic perioral rhytides in all Fitzpatrick phototypes, with marked durability.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".