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=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
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
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
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=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=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=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
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
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
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…
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=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=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=93 Safety and Effectiveness of Belotero® in Subjects With Fitzpatrick Phototypes IV Through VI
Facial Wrinkles
Primary: Percentage of Subjects With Product-related Adverse Events. — 71; 72 percentage of subjects with AEs.
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…
Phase 3 N=218 Safety and Efficacy Study of Isolagen Therapy in the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles
Bilateral Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles
Primary: Subject Wrinkle Assessment Responders — 50; 19 participants — p=<.00001
Phase 3 N=203 Safety and Efficacy Study of Isolagen TherapyTM in the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles
Bilateral Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles
Primary: Subject Wrinkle Assessment Responders — 57; 31 participants — p=.00001
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=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=20 Perioral Rejuvenation and Upper Lip Enhancement
Perioral Rejuvenation · Upper Lip Projection
Primary: Nasal Tip Projection — 0.601 ratio
Phase 2 N=15 Pilot Evaluation of Platelet Rich Fibrin Matrix (PRFM) for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Difference in Wrinkle Assessment Score, Between Pre-treatment and 12 Weeks Post-treatment. — 1.13 units on a scale
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 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=60 Safety & Tolerability Study That Compares Restylane to Restylane With Lidocaine While Correcting Wrinkles in the Nasolabial Folds
Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Treatment Difference in Pain as Measured by a Visual Analogue Scale — 44.9; 14.7 Scores on a VAS 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=52 Evaluation of Pain With Belotero® Balance With Integral Lidocaine for Correction of the Nasolabial Folds
Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds
Primary: Mean Pain Using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) — 3.07; 5.94 score on a scale — p=<0.0001