In addition to clinical research on the efficacy and compatibility of injectable hyaluronic acid (HA) based fillers, ample in vitro research on the physicochemical properties of these materials is published. Different HA‐based product ranges are also available as skin quality boosters (SQBs) to improve skin quality. The aim of this study is to investigate the physicochemical properties of specific HAs for improving skin quality, as, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no data is published on this topic to date. This paper may provide a better understanding of clinical performance and differentiation between these SQBs. Five HA injectable hydrogels (Belotero Revive, Juvederm Volite, Restylane Skinbooster Vital, Viscoderm Hydrobooster, and Profilho) from the SQB product ranges of different companies and manufacturing technologies are investigated for their extrusion force, swelling degree, rheological performance, and cohesivity. There are significant differences in extrusion force, swelling degree, rheological performance, and cohesivity between the assessed SQBs. HA concentration (mg mL−1) exhibits statistically significant positive correlations with extrusion force, swelling degree, tan delta, and cohesivity. This study provides a physicochemical characterization of different SQBs and information to improve understanding of this type of product.

Background The clinical indications, applications, and effect of the injectable hyaluronic acid range skin quality boosters (SQBs) are different than those of filler products. Material properties are increasingly being discussed for differentiation and in connection with clinical effects and esthetic indications. Aims The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SQB products can be differentiated from filler products by their physicochemical material properties. Material and methods Physicochemical properties (extrusion force, swelling degree, rheology, and cohesivity) of two SQBs (BELR, JUVVE) were compared with those of fillers (BELB, JUVVT) using the same manufacturing technology. Results Cohesivity was almost equal for SQBs and fillers. Few statistically significant differences in physicochemical properties were found. Properties of SQBs differed from fillers mainly in their delta of rheological properties and extrusion force. Conclusion In this study, physicochemical differences between SQB and filler were determined and described, supporting the presence of two categories and their different clinical indications and applications.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract