The Redefinition and Volumization of the Lip Area with Hyaluronic Acid: A Case Series

Abstract

Background: The increasing popularity of non-surgical cosmetic enhancements for the lower face and perioral area, particularly through hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, reflects the growing desire for improved lip volume and definition. This study showcases the effects of a specific HA filler on lip fullness, shape, and overall perioral rejuvenation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-site observational analysis of adult female patients treated with Genefill Soft Fill HA injections in the lips and perioral areas. Both patient and physician satisfaction were evaluated using the Likert scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), respectively. The outcomes for natural appearance, volume, and durability were assessed using a five-point scale. The patients were followed up with for up to six months to monitor any adverse events. Results: The cohort included thirteen female patients with an average age of 55.3 ± 8.3 years. Approximately 1.2 ± 0.4 mL of filler was used per patient. The results indicate high satisfaction, with scores above 4 for naturalness, volume, and durability. Over 92% of patients reported a significant improvement in appearance. No moderate or severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Genefill Soft Fill HA filler is both effective and safe for enhancing lip esthetics, with high satisfaction rates among recipients and no significant adverse events observed.

Keywords: filler; hyaluronic acid; lips; perioral rejuvenation; redefinition; volumization.

Figure 1

The distribution of HA dermal filler volume in the lips: (1) 0.1–0.2 cc per side; (2) 0.05–0.1 cc per side; (3) 0.1–0.2 cc total; and (4) 0.01 cc per line, shown in light blue. This figure was personally designed by the authors to accurately represent the procedure described.

Figure 2

Patient photos before and immediately after injection on day 0.

Figure 3

A representative photo series of a patient on day 0 before injection, 2 weeks post-injection, and 3 months post-injection.

Figure 4

Percentage (%) of patients per score. Results from day 1 post-injection to 6 months post-injection assessed on five-point scale. Natural appearance (A), volumizing effect (B), and durability (C) were evaluated by investigator.

Figure 5

Treatment satisfaction. (A) Patient satisfaction levels were evaluated using Likert scale. (B) Score results were obtained from physician after completion of GAIS (Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale) questionnaire after procedure.