Phase 4 N=101 Prospective Evaluation of Facial Cosmetic Procedures
Cosmetic Techniques
Primary: Patient Satisfaction With Validated FACE-Q Aesthetics Survey — 28.0; 24.0; 36.0; 36.0 score on a scale
Clinical Trial Search
Completed trials with posted results — search by concept, filter by the parameters that matter at the bedside.
N/A N=21 Gene Expression Study Between Two Dermal Injectables Hydroxylapatite Semi-permanent Filler
Gene Expression
Primary: Gene Expression — 1; 1; 1; 4 Significantly upregulated genes
N/A N=11 A Prospective Evaluation of Infraorbital Filler Injection
Dermal Filler · Rejuvenation
Primary: Volumetric Change in Infraorbital Treatment Baseline to Each Post-intervention Timepoint Day 14, Day 30, and Day 90 — -0.026; -0.065; -0.108 cc
N/A N=77 Global Management of Facial Rejuvenation With a New Range of Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers
Facial Wrinkles
Primary: Full Face Global Aesthetic Improvement — 2.5 units on a scale
N/A N=273 New Dermal Filler for Lip Augmentation
Lip Augmentation
Primary: Assess Effectiveness of the Treatment Using the Medicis Lip Fullness Scale (MLFS) — 1.8; 1.7; 1.8; 1.8 Change in MLFS score from baseline
N/A N=101 Evaluation of Radiesse® Dermal Filler for Hand Rejuvenation
Aging Hands
Primary: Mean Change on Busso Hand Volume Severity Scale (BHVSS), by Hand — 2.54; 2.44; 1.72; 2.44 units on a scale — p=< 0.0001
Phase 4 N=100 Radiesse® Injectable Dermal Filler for the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds in Persons of Color
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Number Participants With Hypertropic Scarring, Keloid Formation, Hyper- or Hypopigmentation in Patients With Fitzpatrick Skin Types IV, V, and VI Receiving Nasolabial…
N/A N=60 Pan Facial Volume Restoration
Volume Loss (Soft Tissue Ptosis or Atrophy )
Primary: Mean Change From Baseline in Volume Loss Assessment — -0.8 Score on a scale
Phase 3 N=140 A Study to Compare the Safety and Effectiveness of a Non-FDA Approved Device Dermal Gel Extra (DGE) and an FDA Approved Device for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds (NLFs)
Facial Wrinkles at the Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Change From Baseline in the Blinded Evaluator's Assessment of Nasolabial Fold (NLF) Wrinkle Severity at Week 24 — 1.8; 1.8 Units on a scale
N/A N=90 A Study to Evaluate Effectiveness and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Fillers
Volume Deficiency of the Midface
Primary: Percentage of Participants With Aesthetic Improvement of Midface — 96.8; 100; 97.1 percentage of participants
Phase 4 N=32 Juvederm Ultra With Lidocaine Compared With Restylane for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Procedural Pain Score — 2.0; 4.1 units on a scale
N/A N=118 Evaluation of Radiesse® Dermal Filler for Hand Treatment
Aging Hands
Primary: Mean Change on Merz Hand Grading Scale (MHGS), by Hand — 2.6; 2.6; 1.5; 2.6 units on a scale — p=<0.0001
N/A N=11 Comparative Ultrasound Analysis of Two Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers
Volume Deficiency of the Midface
Primary: Assess and Compare Tissue Aggregation and Visualization of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers by Investigator Using Ultrasound — 10; 1; 7; 9 Participants
Phase 4 N=20 Injectable Filler for Cheek Flattening
Malar Deficiency
Primary: Blinded Evaluations of First Impression — 7.35 score on a scale
N/A N=16 Jowl Improvement With Injectable Fillers
Jowls
Primary: Blinded Physician Jawline Rating Scale (JRS) Assessment on Scale of 0 to 4 at Baseline Versus 4 Weeks After Last Injection. — 2.214; 2.071; 1.857; 1.857 score on a scale…
Phase 4 N=25 Changing in Skin Physiology After Microdroplet Placement of Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid in Aging Faces
Aging
Primary: Hydration Level — 53.19; 46.75 AU (arbitrary unit) — p=<0.05
N/A N=207 Safety, Effectiveness and Participant Satisfaction Study of a Dermal Filler (of RADIESSE® (+) Lidocaine) in the Treatment of Ageing Signs in the Face
Signs of Facial Aging With Volume Loss in the Upper Cheeks, Nasolabial Folds and Marionette Lines
Primary: Responder Rate for Nasolabial Folds Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the Merz Nasolabial Folds Scale (MNLFS) at Week 12/16 (Depending on Touch-up) — 93.6…
N/A N=270 Effectiveness and Safety of Princess FILLER Lidocaine in Correction of Nasolabial Folds (NLF)
Dermatological Non-Disease
Primary: Responder Status Based on Independent Evaluating Investigator Live Assessment at Week 24 - Full Analysis Dataset — 222; 221 Participants — p=<0.0001
Phase 3 N=118 Multicenter Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Dermal Filler, Belotero®.
Facial Wrinkles
Primary: Adjusted (LS) Mean Change From Baseline in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (SRS) Score of Each Nasolabial Fold (NLF) as Determined by the Blinded Evaluator at Week 12…
Phase 4 N=18 Rejuvenation of the Lower Eyelid Using a Combination of Two Hyaluronic Acid Fillers - a Pilot Study
Infraorbital Hollows
Primary: The Primary Objective of This Study is to Determine the Efficacy and Longevity of the Use of Restylane® and Perlane® in Combination for the Rejuvenation of the…
N/A N=138 JUVEDERM® Ultra XC vs. Belotero Balance® for Perioral Lines
Patients With Moderate to Severe Perioral Lines
Primary: Percentage of Participants With at Least a 1 Point Improvement From Baseline on the Perioral Lines Severity Scale (POLSS) — 87; 72 percentage of participants
Phase 4 N=50 Evaluation of Pain With Lidocaine-Mixed Radiesse® Injectable Dermal Filler
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Pain Score Using a 10-cm Visual Analog Pain Scale (1 = no Pain, 10 = Very Severe Pain) — 2.8; 6.6 cm
N/A N=169 Restylane Perlane Lidocaine for Correction of Midface Volume Deficit and/or Midface Contour Deficiency
Midface Volume Deficit
Primary: Percent Responders With 1 Point Improvement on the Medicis Midface Volume Scale — 67; 8 Participants
N/A N=62 Princess® VOLUME Lidocaine for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Fold, Hypoplastic
Primary: NLF-SRS Grade of Nasolabial Folds Change — -1.50 score on a scale
N/A N=48 Study for the Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Dermal Filler Princess® VOLUME in Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Change in Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale (MFWS) From Day 0 to Day 180 — -1.309 score on a scale
N/A N=147 TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action, TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines, and Juvéderm® Ultra XC for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds, Wrinkles
Primary: Non-inferiority of the Delta of TEOSYAL® RHA GA and TEOSYAL® RHA DL Versus Juvéderm® Ultra XC for the Correction of Moderate to Severe NLFs Based on the Wrinkle Severity…
Phase 2 N=145 Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of CosmetaLife™ for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Facial Wrinkles
Primary: Change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale — -0.94; -1.07 units on scale
Phase 3 N=168 JUVÉDERM® VOLUMA® With Lidocaine for Correction of Temple Hollowing in Chinese Population
Temple Hollowing
Primary: Number of Participants With Adverse Events — 23; 59; 1; 2 Participants
N/A N=110 Saypha® Volume LIdocaine in Nasolabial Folds
Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Responder Rate in Reduction of Nasolabial Folds — 34; 39; 73 Participants
Phase 4 N=58 Sequential Treatment With BELKYRA® Then Juvéderm® VOLUMA™ With Lidocaine for Overall Improvement in Jawline Contour
Contour
Primary: Percentage of Participants Who Showed ≥ 1-point Jawline Improvement From Baseline on the Allergan Loss of Jawline Definition Scale (ALJDS), as Assessed by the…