Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 17, 2026
Single-stage Dynamic Reanimation of the Smile in Irreversible Facial Paralysis by Free Functional Muscle Transfer
Published on: March 1, 2015
Patient-Reported Outcomes following Split-Face Injection of 2 Volumizing Fillers in the Upper Cheeks
Welf Prager1, Karla Agsten1, Martina Kerscher1
1Prager & Partner Dermatologische Praxis, Hamburg, Germany; SCIderm GmbH, Hamburg, Germany; and Department of Cosmetic Science University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Background:
Patient-reported outcomes are important measures when assessing the efficacy of aesthetic procedures.
Objective:
To compare outcomes between 2 volumizing hyaluronic acid fillers.
Materials And Methods:
Subjects with moderate-to-severe volume loss in the cheeks were randomized in a split-face design to malar enhancement with Cohesive Polydensified Matrix 26 mg/ml HA (CPM-26) and Vycross 20 mg/ml HA (VYC-20). The same injection technique and injection volume were applied for both sides of the face. Anesthetics, overcorrection, and touch-ups were not permitted. Blinded subjects assessed aesthetic improvements using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale and treatment satisfaction by confirming their willingness to repeat treatment or recommend it to friends. Follow-up was 18 months.
Results:
A total of 45 subjects received a single 2 mL injection of CPM-26 on one side and VYC-20 on the contralateral side of the face. The proportion of subjects reporting improvement on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale compared with baseline for CPM-26 and VYC-20 was 97.7% and 88.6%, respectively, at 3 months, 73.8% and 71.1% at 12 months, and 61.0% and 56.7% at 18 months. Treatment satisfaction was high, with the majority of subjects stating that they would repeat treatment and recommend it to friends, but at each time point, a higher proportion of subjects was more satisfied with the CPM-26-treated side of the face.
Conclusions:
In this first direct comparison of CPM-26 and VYC-20, the majority of subjects were satisfied with both treatments throughout the study. Patient-reported outcome measures identified a trend in favor of CPM-26.
