Abstract
Background: Skinboosters represent the latest category of hyaluronan (HA) hydrogels released for aesthetic purposes. Different from originally developed gels, they are intended for more superficial injections, claiming a skin rejuvenation effect through hydration and possibly prompting biochemical effects in place of the conventional volumetric action. Here, three commercial skinboosters were characterized to unravel the scientific basis for such indication and to compare their performances. Methods: Gels were evaluated for water-soluble/insoluble-HA composition, rheology, hydration, cohesivity, stability and effect, in vitro, on human dermal fibroblasts towards the production of extracellular matrix components. Results: Marked differences in the insoluble-hydrogel amount and in the hydrodynamic parameters for water-soluble-HA chains were evidenced among the gels. Hydration, rigidity and cohesivity also varied over a wide range. Sensitivity to hyaluronidases and Reactive Oxygen Species was demonstrated allowing a stability ranking. Slight differences were found in gels’ ability to prompt elastin expression and in ColIV/ColI ratio. Conclusions. A wide panel of biophysical and biochemical parameters for skinboosters was provided, supporting clinicians in the conscious tuning of their use. Data revealed great variability in gels’ behavior notwithstanding the same clinical indication and unexpected similarities to the volumetric formulations. Data may be useful to improve customization of gel design toward specific uses.
Highlights
Background: Skinboosters represent the latest category of hyaluronan (HA) hydrogels released for aesthetic purposes
As for RV, the insoluble HA content almost doubled compared to Juvederm Volite (JV)
We studied the gels in contact with human dermal fibroblasts
Summary
Facial injection of hyaluronan (HA)-based gels for aesthetic purposes is well-established and HA crosslinked with 1,4 butandiolediglycidylether (BDDE), suspended in physiological solution, is generally employed [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. A more recent approach has been extended to the whole fluido-dynamic gel behavior as well as to its sensitivity to enzymatic and radical degradation and to other properties (e.g., hydration capacity, cohesivity) [1,5,6,7,8,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] All of the latter features are known to contribute to the in vivo effect after injection and/or over time, and they are generally studied to predict relative in vivo performance and to provide clinicians with valuable information to select treatments and optimize outcome [1,5,6,7,8,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Data may be useful to improve customization of gel design toward specific uses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
