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
Clinical Trial Search
Completed trials with posted results — search by concept, filter by the parameters that matter at the bedside.
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=126 A Safety and Effectiveness Study of JUVÉDERM VOLIFT® XC Versus Control for Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Mean Change From Baseline in Nasolabial Fold Severity Using the 5-Point Nasolabial Fold Severity Scale (NLFSS) — 2.6; 2.6; 1.4; 1.3 Scores on a Scale
N/A N=175 Restylane Defyne Compared to Restylane for Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Population
Primary: Percentage of Responders, Defined by at Least 1-point Improvement From Baseline on the WSRS. — 72.9; 72.8 percentage of subjects
N/A N=20 A Study to Evaluate the Performance and Safety of GP0045 for Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Fold · Safety
Primary: Response Rate in Treatment of Nasolabial Fold (NLF) Based on a Scale — 63.2; 68.4 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=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
N/A N=118 TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep and Perlane-L® for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds, Wrinkles
Primary: Non-inferiority of the Delta of the WSRS Score Between W24 and Baseline for TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep Versus Perlane-L® for the Correction of Moderate to Severe…
N/A N=102 Evaluation of Pain With Radiesse® With Lidocaine for Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Pain Score Using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain (0 = no Pain, 10 = Very Severe Pain) — 2.32; 6.73 units on a scale — p=<0.0001
N/A N=60 Post Market Study Evaluating Princess Filler Lidocaine for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Change From Baseline in Average Nasolabial Folds-Severity Rating Scale (NLF-SRS) Grade Based on Investigator Assessment at Week 24 — -1.8 score on a scale
N/A N=121 Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Radiesse for the Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds (NLFs)
Primary: Change From Baseline to Week 24 on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) — 3.4; 3.4; 2.4; 2.4 score on a scale
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=100 Efficacy and Safety of Restylane Perlane Compared to Restylane for Correction of Moderate and Severe Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Population
Primary: Mean Change From Baseline in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) at 6 Months — -0.03; 0.03 units 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…
N/A N=70 Post-Market Study of JUVÉDERM VOLIFT™ With Lidocaine for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Investigator Assessment of Nasolabial Fold Severity Using the 5-point Nasolabial Fold Severity Scale (NLFSS) — 2.8; 2.8 Scores on a Scale
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 4 N=30 Emervel for the Correction of Lower Face Wrinkles & Folds
Nasolabial Folds · Marionette Lines · Wrinkles
Primary: Number of Subjects With Naturalness of Expression in Motion (2D Video) — 30 Participants
N/A N=100 Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of Revanesse® Ultra + vs Revanesse® Ultra for Correction of NLF
Nasolabial Fold Correction
Primary: Pain at Injection as Measured by Subject on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scale at Time 0 Minutes Post Injection — 26.2; 39.4 VAS
N/A N=181 Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of Radiesse for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds in China
Correction of the Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Percentage of NLFs With Treatment Success at Month 6 — 66.0; 72.8 Percentage of successfully treated NFLs
Phase 3 N=303 Treatment of Moderate to Severe Lateral Canthal Lines
Lateral Canthal Lines
Primary: Percentage of Subjects With a ≥ 2-grade Improvement From Baseline on the Lateral Canthal Line Investigator and Subject Assessments at Maximum Smile at One Month. — 106…
N/A N=110 Clinical Study for the Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Use of a Poly-L Lactic Acid Injectable Filler for the Aesthetic Treatment of Nasolabial Folds
Wrinkle
Primary: Change From Baseline in the Nasolabial Folds Severity Score on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) 6 Months After Treatment — -0.3; -0.2; -0.1 score on a scale
N/A N=205 Sculptra for Correction of Midface Volume Deficit and/or Midface Contour Deficiency
Midface Volume Deficit
Primary: Percentage of Participants With 1 Point Improvement From Baseline on the Medicis Midface Volume Scale (MMVS) as Measured by the Blinded Evaluator at Month 12 — 68.8…
N/A N=50 RHA® 4 NLF Cannula
Wrinkle · Nasolabial Fold · Aging
Primary: Change in NLF-WSRS Score Between Baseline and Week 12 After Last Treatment as Assessed by the BLE — -1.61; -1.65 score on a scale
Phase 3 N=25 Assess Aesthetic Improvement With QM1114-DP in Subjects With Moderate to Severe Lateral Canthal Lines and Glabellar Lines
Glabellar Frown Lines · Canthal Lines
Primary: Responders Rate Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Maximum Frown (Glabellar Lines) — 100 percentage of participants
N/A N=80 Safety and Effectiveness of Sculptra Aesthetic for Correction of Nasolabial Folds.
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Change in Wrinkle Assessment Scale (WAS) Score — -1.3; -1.3; -1.2; -1.3 units on a scale
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
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…
N/A N=148 Restylane Defyne for Correction of Chin Retrusion
Chin Retrusion
Primary: Percentage of Participants (Responders) With At Least 1-Point Improvement From Baseline on the GCRS, as Assessed by the Blinded Evaluator at Month 6 ([Baseline…
N/A N=30 RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic - Nasolabial Folds
Aging · Pain
Primary: Non-inferiority of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into Nasolabial Folds. — 17.1; 16.3 mm…
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