Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Injectable fillers represent one of the most requested minimally invasive treatments to rejuvenate the aging face, and its popularity is steadily rising. A vast majority of filler treatments are with hyaluronic acid (HA). The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate patient outcomes, safety profile, and administration techniques of various HA fillers for malar augmentation. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and included PubMed, Embase, and Science Direct databases. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used were “cheek” OR “midface” OR “malar” and “filler” OR “hyaluronic acid” OR “Juvederm” OR “Restylane” OR “Perlane” OR “Belotero.” The initial search identified 699 articles; 256 duplicates were removed. Additional 12 studies were identified from reference lists. A total of 455 were screened by title and abstract and 387 studies were eliminated based on criteria. Also, 68 articles underwent full-text review, and 18 articles were included in the final review and involved seven different HA formulations. Men and women from many age groups were highly satisfied with their results following HA treatment for midface augmentation up to 24 months. The most common adverse events included bruising, swelling, and tenderness, and typically lasted no more than 2 weeks. Upper cheek filler injections near the zygoma should be placed in the submuscular plane while lower cheek injections should be placed in the subcutaneous tissue. HA is an attractive choice for midface augmentation due to its high patient satisfaction, long-lasting effects, and low side-effect profile. Due to the variability in technique, level of expertise, and subjective measurements across studies, one optimal regimen could not be concluded. However, midface augmentation treatment should be personalized to each patient. Additional clinical trials are required to more conclusively determine the most appropriate approach for this procedure.

Clinical Experience with PEGylated Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A 3-year Retrospective Study

“…Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are the most used worldwide, this is mainly related to the high biocompatibility and safety profile of HA, moreover, HA is the only substance that can be "dissolved" thanks to the use of hyaluronidase (HYAL) that induce an enzymatic hydrolytic effect [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The possibility to hydrolyze HA, once injected, is useful in cases of unpleasant results, however, its main advantage is related to the possibility to treat unwanted side effects such as nodules, and especially vascular problems such as impending necrosis [6], [7].…”

Development of an In Vivo Model for Eustachian Tube Dysfunction

“…However, by using the stabilized HA and, thus, the longer half-life in the tissue, the goal of an ETD on day 7 was achieved. The efficacy of using Restylane ® and other stabilized HA fillers for augmentation in dermatology and aesthetic surgery has been reported to vary from 12 weeks to 16 months, with similar amounts of 0.5 mL to 3.9 mL of HA [ 31 , 32 ], depending on the localization of the application. This information is partially consistent with the results in this study.…”

Restylane: What we know

“…• Cheek augmentation 4 • Deep dermis to superficial subcutis for the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles (up to 93%), mild bruising and tenderness, though these effects are short-lasting. 2,14,15 Less commonly, inflammatory granulomatous micronodules may form at the site of injection; histologically, histiocytes and foamy macrophages are found within the presence of these granulomatous tissue accumulations. 16 To ameliorate this cosmetically disturbing side effect, providers can dissolve Restylane both safely and effectively with targeted hyaluronidase injections.…”