Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2025 Jul;24(7):e70309.
doi: 10.1111/jocd.70309.

Noninferiority Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a New Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Filler Containing Lidocaine With an Existing HA Filler for the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Trial

Ji Young Cho  1 , Seung Hyeon Kim  2 , Hyesoo Cho  1 , Yoonjae Park  1 , Hee Joo Yang  1 , Jee Soo An  1 , Chong Hyun Won  1 , Jong Hun Lee  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Noninferiority Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a New Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Filler Containing Lidocaine With an Existing HA Filler for the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Trial

Ji Young Cho et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The aesthetic use of hyaluronic acid (HA) has led to the development of various commercial HA fillers. Crosslinked HA dermal fillers are commonly used to treat facial wrinkles. This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the newly developed hyaluronic acid filler by comparing its efficacy and safety to that of the existing hyaluronic acid filler.

Methods: This 48-week study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial. Subjects who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria had a total of four follow-up visits after receiving a dermal filler in the nasolabial folds. Efficacy was assessed using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Safety was determined through the evaluation of laboratory tests, monitoring adverse events, and verifying vital signs.

Results: WSRS measured at week 24 of the follow-up visit showed no statistically significant difference, with scores of 2.02 ± 0.71 in the new filler group and 2.27 ± 0.68 in the existing filler group. Even at the 48-week follow-up visit, the improvement rate in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) of more than 1 point did not show a statistically significant difference between the new filler group and the existing filler group. The GAIS scores at each follow-up visit showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The most frequently reported symptoms related to the test device during the 48-week trial were pain and swelling. However, these symptoms were not statistically significant when compared to the control group from a treatment perspective.

Conclusions: In a 48-week clinical trial aimed at treating nasolabial fold (NLF) wrinkles, the new hyaluronic acid (HA) filler demonstrated efficacy and safety comparable to that of existing control filler. As a result, the new HA filler is both an effective and safe option for improving NLF wrinkles.

Trial registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT06310863.

Keywords: dermal fillers; hyaluronic acid; nasolabial fold.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart of subjects included in the trial.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The mean value of WSRS score evaluated by independent investigators at week 24.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Aesthetic outcomes in a 45‐year‐old female subject. (A) At baseline, (B) at week 24 following the HA filler injections. The subject's left mid‐face was injected with the new HA filler containing lidocaine and right mid‐face with the conventional HA filler.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
The mean value of WSRS scores in the test group and the control group.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
The mean value of GAIS scores in the test group and the control group.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
The proportion of subjects with improved WSRS scores at weeks 24 and 48.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bravo B., Correia P., Gonçalves Junior J. E., Sant'Anna B., and Kerob D., “Benefits of Topical Hyaluronic Acid for Skin Quality and Signs of Skin Aging: From Literature Review to Clinical Evidence,” Dermatologic Therapy 35, no. 12 (2022): e15903, 10.1111/dth.15903. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jiang H., Guan Y., Yang J., Zhang J., Zhang Q., and Chen Z., “Using New Autologous Tissue Filler Improved Nasolabial Folds‐Single‐Armed Pilot Study,” Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 45, no. 6 (2021): 2920–2927, 10.1007/s00266-021-02608-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. In Cheon H., Kim J. H., Kim B. J., and Lee Y. W., “Efficacy and Safety of a New Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Nasolabial Folds: A 52‐Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Evaluator/Subject‐Blind, Split‐Face Study,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 20, no. 5 (2021): 1467–1473, 10.1111/jocd.13773. - DOI - PubMed
    1. John H. E. and Price R. D., “Perspectives in the Selection of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Facial Wrinkles and Aging Skin,” Patient Preference and Adherence 3 (2009): 225–230. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang F., Garza L. A., Kang S., et al., “In Vivo Stimulation of De Novo Collagen Production Caused by Cross‐Linked Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler Injections in Photodamaged Human Skin,” Archives of Dermatology 143 (2007): 155–163. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Grants and funding