Neue Rubrik Epidemiologie

http://ift.tt/2kpDHGh

Maligne Hodentumoren

http://ift.tt/2kppWri

Categorizing facial creases: A review

Summary

Ensuring uniformity in the nomenclature standardization of facial creases is important to enable the scholarly community to follow and debate the advancements in research. This review highlights the prevailing disparity in the nomenclature that refers to the same facial crease by researchers and laypeople, and suggests uniform names for the facial creases based on available literature. The previous and current trends in facial crease classification are also discussed. The nomenclature of the facial creases considered for this review include the following: the nasolabial fold, corner of the mouth lines, upper and lower lip creases around the mouth region, the mandibular folds, the bifid nose, the transverse nasal line, the vertical glabellar line, chin crease, the mental crease, four type of creases around the eyes, forehead creases, and periauricular creases. A figure illustrating the above facial creases is included as reference. It is hoped that the proposed standardization of nomenclature would ensure a more scientific referencing of facial creases enabling more effective scientific interaction among the scholarly community as well as the laypeople interested in the research and application of facial creases.

http://ift.tt/2jVeBxT

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new monophasic hyaluronic acid filler with lidocaine 0.3% in the correction of nasolabial fold

Summary

Background

Many new brands of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are being introduced, but comparative research on the characteristics of similar products is limited.

Objective

To test the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of a HA filler with lidocaine, Dermalax implant plus™ (Across), which is used for correcting nasolabial folds (NLFs), and to compare the performance of that of Restylane Sub-Q^® (Q-Med).

Methods

A total of 52 subjects with visible NLFs were enrolled in this randomized, multicenter, patient/evaluator-blind, active-controlled, matched-pair clinical study. Each subject was injected with Dermalax implant plus™ in one NLF and Restylane Sub-Q^® in the other. All participants were reassessed for cosmetic changes at 2, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks. Wrinkle severity was rated using the 5-point Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS).

Results

At week 24, the mean improvement in the WSRS compared to baseline was 1.06±0.54 for the PLUS side and 0.69±0.58 for the Sub-Q side (week 2: 1.67±0.58 and 1.21±0.67, week 8: 1.60±0.63 and 1.23±0.65, week 12: 1.58±0.61 and 1.15±0.61, week 16: 1.02±0.54 and 0.60±0.53). Average values of pain evaluated by self-assessment 100-mm VAS score within 30 minutes after the procedure in the PLUS and Sub-Q groups were 14.65±16.23 and 38.29±27.27, respectively. Both fillers were well tolerated, and adverse reactions were mild.

Conclusion

We confirmed that the monophasic HA containing pre-incorporated lidocaine (PLUS) is not inferior to well-studied biphasic HA (Sub-Q) in correcting to severe nasolabial folds for 24 weeks and less painful than biphasic HA not containing lidocaine.

http://ift.tt/2jV5zRq

Categorizing facial creases: A review

Summary

Ensuring uniformity in the nomenclature standardization of facial creases is important to enable the scholarly community to follow and debate the advancements in research. This review highlights the prevailing disparity in the nomenclature that refers to the same facial crease by researchers and laypeople, and suggests uniform names for the facial creases based on available literature. The previous and current trends in facial crease classification are also discussed. The nomenclature of the facial creases considered for this review include the following: the nasolabial fold, corner of the mouth lines, upper and lower lip creases around the mouth region, the mandibular folds, the bifid nose, the transverse nasal line, the vertical glabellar line, chin crease, the mental crease, four type of creases around the eyes, forehead creases, and periauricular creases. A figure illustrating the above facial creases is included as reference. It is hoped that the proposed standardization of nomenclature would ensure a more scientific referencing of facial creases enabling more effective scientific interaction among the scholarly community as well as the laypeople interested in the research and application of facial creases.

http://ift.tt/2jVeBxT

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new monophasic hyaluronic acid filler with lidocaine 0.3% in the correction of nasolabial fold

Summary

Background

Many new brands of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are being introduced, but comparative research on the characteristics of similar products is limited.

Objective

To test the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of a HA filler with lidocaine, Dermalax implant plus™ (Across), which is used for correcting nasolabial folds (NLFs), and to compare the performance of that of Restylane Sub-Q^® (Q-Med).

Methods

A total of 52 subjects with visible NLFs were enrolled in this randomized, multicenter, patient/evaluator-blind, active-controlled, matched-pair clinical study. Each subject was injected with Dermalax implant plus™ in one NLF and Restylane Sub-Q^® in the other. All participants were reassessed for cosmetic changes at 2, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks. Wrinkle severity was rated using the 5-point Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS).

Results

At week 24, the mean improvement in the WSRS compared to baseline was 1.06±0.54 for the PLUS side and 0.69±0.58 for the Sub-Q side (week 2: 1.67±0.58 and 1.21±0.67, week 8: 1.60±0.63 and 1.23±0.65, week 12: 1.58±0.61 and 1.15±0.61, week 16: 1.02±0.54 and 0.60±0.53). Average values of pain evaluated by self-assessment 100-mm VAS score within 30 minutes after the procedure in the PLUS and Sub-Q groups were 14.65±16.23 and 38.29±27.27, respectively. Both fillers were well tolerated, and adverse reactions were mild.

Conclusion

We confirmed that the monophasic HA containing pre-incorporated lidocaine (PLUS) is not inferior to well-studied biphasic HA (Sub-Q) in correcting to severe nasolabial folds for 24 weeks and less painful than biphasic HA not containing lidocaine.

http://ift.tt/2jV5zRq

Inside front cover continued (editorial board members)

Publication date: February 2017
Source:Biological Psychology, Volume 123





http://ift.tt/2jUU6Sa