Page 27 - Read Online

Page 4 of 8 Bon Betemps et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2018;5:19 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2018.24

Table 2. Key rheological properties of two HA volumizers
Product reference Viscosity η at Normal force F N of compression Elastic modulus G’ in shear Elastic modulus E’ in
-1
1 s (Pa.s) at 0.9 mm (cN) stress at 1 Hz (Pa) compression at 1 Hz (Pa)
-1
Gel D 204 ± 12 71 ± 7 310 ± 4 85,765 ± 1701
Juvéderm Voluma 65 ± 1 15 ± 2 318 ± 3 59,000 ± 1440
Data analysis
Each test was carried out in triplicate. Data (projection heights) were expressed as the mean ± standard
deviation.

A statistical test is used to compare averages between the six projection heights of Juvéderm Voluma and the
six projection heights of gel D (OXIFREE technology).

In this bilateral test (comparison of the difference of two averages at a given value), the difference of the
averages (Juvéderm Voluma and gel D) is compared to the D value. D value is fixed as equal to zero,
0
0
allowing to test the equality of the two averages.

RESULTS
Comparative rheological results measured on two HA volumizers
The key rheological properties viscosity η, static compression F , elastic modulus in dynamic shear stress G’
N
and elastic modulus in dynamic compression E’ were measured on Juvéderm Voluma and a new HA filler
(gel D) benefiting from the OXIFREE technology. The results are summarized in Table 2.

Comparative results measured with the skin model assay on two HA volumizers
The projection heights measured with the skin model assay are illustrated in the Figure 1 and the overall
results are summarized in Table 3.

By statistically comparing averages between the six projection heights of Juvéderm Voluma and the six
projection heights of gel D (OXIFREE technology), the two averages (Juvéderm Voluma and gel D) are
statistically different.

The novel OXIFREE product gel D exhibits 34% more projection height compared to Juvéderm Voluma.

DISCUSSION
With the new skin model assay presented in this publication and applied on two HA volumizers, including
the market leader Juvéderm Voluma, the projection heights are reproducible and significantly different for
the two tested products.

This new assay is thus efficient and reliable to assess the ability of a HA filler to project and create volume.
The projection height measured with the assay can be assimilated to the capacity of the tested gel to push the
skin tissues and therefore to project them for facial volume restoration. Consequently, the assay is very useful
for comparing the projection capacity of HA fillers, especially among HA volumizers.

In the case of the two HA volumizers studied in this publication, the projection height measured with the
skin model assay is significantly and statistically higher for the novel OXIFREE product than Juvéderm
Voluma. The projection capacity obtained with the OXIFREE product is therefore higher than
Juvéderm Voluma.