Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(05): 576-584
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724122
Original Research

Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Lily N. Trinh 
1   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
,
Amar Gupta
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Surgery, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Brighton, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

hyaluronic acid - facial filler - midface augmentation - facial rejuvenation - systematic review


Publication History

Article published online:
25 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics . Accessed August 20, 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Coleman SR, Grover R. The anatomy of the aging face: volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topography. Aesthet Surg J 2006; 26 (1S, SUPPL.): S4-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Macierzyńska A, Pierzchała E, Placek W. Volumetric techniques: three-dimensional midface modeling. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2014; 31 (06) 388-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kontis L. Cosmetic Injection Techniques, A Text and Video Guide to Neurotoxins and Fillers. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Jacono AA, Rousso JJ. An algorithmic approach to multimodality midfacial rejuvenation using a new classification system for midfacial aging. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42 (01) 17-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ramirez OM. Three-dimensional endoscopic midface enhancement: a personal quest for the ideal cheek rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (01) 329-340 , discussion 341–349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ramirez O. The “Ogee” of the midface: aesthetic and technical considerations. In: Hartstein ME, Wulc AE, Holck DEE. eds. Midfacial Rejuvenation. New York, NY: Springer; 2012: 205-218
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Linkov G, Mally P, Czyz CN, Wulc AE. Quantification of the aesthetically desirable female midface position. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (03) 231-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Attenello NH, Maas CS. Injectable fillers: review of material and properties. Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31 (01) 29-34
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Carruthers A, Carruthers J. eds. Soft Tissue Augmentation. Procedures in Cosmetic Dermatology Series. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Woodward J, Khan T, Martin J. Facial filler complications. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (04) 447-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Taub AF. Cheek augmentation improves feelings of facial attractiveness. J Drugs Dermatol 2012; 11 (09) 1077-1080
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Biesman BS, Bowe WP. Effect of midfacial volume augmentation with non animal stabilized hyaluronic acid on the nasolabial fold and global aethestic appearance. J Drugs Dermatol 2015; 14 (09) 943-947
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bertucci V, Lin X, Axford-Gatley RA, Theisen MJ, Swift A. Safety and effectiveness of large gel particle hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of midface volume loss. Dermatol Surg 2013; 39 (11) 1621-1629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kestemont P, Cartier H, Trevidic P, Rzany B, Gerhard S. Sustained efficacy and high patient satisfaction after cheek enhancement with a new hyaluronic acid dermal filler. J Drugs Dermatol 2012; 11 (1 Suppl): s9-s16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gauglitz G, Steckmeier S, Pötschke J, Schwaiger H. Cohesive Polydensified Matrix® hyaluronic acid volumizer injected for cheek augmentation has additional positive effect on nasolabial folds. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2017; 10: 507-513
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Micheels P, Vandeputte J, Kravtsov M. Treatment of age-related mid-face atrophy by injection of cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid volumizer. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2015; 8 (03) 28-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jones IT, Vanaman Wilson MJ, Bolton J, Zaleski-Larsen L, Wu DC, Goldman MP. A single center, prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded, split-face trial using microinjections of transparent hyaluronic acid gel for cheek rejuvenation. Dermatol Surg 2018; 44 (06) 841-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 DeLorenzi C, Weinberg M, Solish N, Swift A. Multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous non-animal-stabilized hyaluronic acid in aesthetic facial contouring: interim report. Dermatol Surg 2006; 32 (02) 205-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 DeLorenzi C, Weinberg M, Solish N, Swift A. The long-term efficacy and safety of a subcutaneously injected large-particle stabilized hyaluronic acid-based gel of nonanimal origin in esthetic facial contouring. Dermatol Surg 2009; 35 (Suppl. 01) 313-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lowe NJ, Grover R. Injectable hyaluronic acid implant for malar and mental enhancement. Dermatol Surg 2006; 32 (07) 881-885 , discussion 885
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jones D, Murphy DK. Volumizing hyaluronic acid filler for midface volume deficit: 2-year results from a pivotal single-blind randomized controlled study. Dermatol Surg 2013; 39 (11) 1602-1612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Few J, Cox SE, Paradkar-Mitragotri D, Murphy DK. A multicenter, single-blind randomized, controlled study of a volumizing hyaluronic acid filler for midface volume deficit: patient-reported outcomes at 2 years. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (05) 589-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Glaser DA, Kenkel JM, Paradkar-Mitragotri D, Murphy DK, Romagnano L, Drinkwater A. Duration of effect by injection volume and facial subregion for a volumizing hyaluronic acid filler in treating midface volume deficit. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41 (08) 942-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wilson MV, Fabi SG, Greene R. Correction of age-related midface volume loss with low-volume hyaluronic acid filler. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (02) 88-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Callan P, Goodman GJ, Carlisle I. et al. Efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid filler in subjects treated for correction of midface volume deficiency: a 24 month study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2013; 6: 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Casabona G, Frank K, Koban KC. et al. Lifting vs volumizing—the difference in facial minimally invasive procedures when respecting the line of ligaments. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019; 18 (05) 1237-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Philipp-Dormston WG, Eccleston D, De Boulle K, Hilton S, van den Elzen H, Nathan M. A prospective, observational study of the volumizing effect of open-label aesthetic use of Juvéderm® VOLUMA® with Lidocaine in mid-face area. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2014; 16 (04) 171-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mowlds DS, Lambros V. Cheek volumization and the nasolabial fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (05) 1124-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Biesman BS, Bowe WP. Effect of midfacial volume augmentation with non animal stabilized hyaluronic acid on the nasolabial fold and global aesthetic appearance. J Drugs Dermatol 2015; 14 (09) 943-947
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Glogau RG, Kane MAC. Effect of injection techniques on the rate of local adverse events in patients implanted with nonanimal hyaluronic acid gel dermal fillers. Dermatol Surg 2008; 34 (Suppl. 01) S105-S109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Suh DH, Lee SJ, Kim SM, Lee JD, Kim HS. The safety and efficacy of poly-L-lactic acid on sunken cheeks in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2014; 16 (04) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Alam M, Tung R. Injection technique in neurotoxins and fillers: Indications, products, and outcomes. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018; 79 (03) 423-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar