I have come across some interesting articles recently regarding injectables. Let’s begin the non-controversial one: Behind the Lines by Linda W. Lewis, Nov/Dec 2010 MedEsthetics (pp 32-. This one notes several filler discontinuations:
Johnson & Johnson (jnj.com) withdrew porcine collagen-based Evolence in November 2009; Allergan (allergan.com) discontinued its human and bovine collagen fillers, CosmoDerm, CosmoPlast, Zyderm and Zyplast, late last year and will stop distribution by the end of 2010.
The article mentions the latest filler introductions:
Juvederm XC from Allergan and Restylane-L and Perlane-L from Medicis (medicis.com). These products differ from their predecessors only in the addition of lidocaine to the formulations.
Much greater changes are on the horizon, however, as manufacturers seek approval for exciting new products like Novabel (Merz Aesthetic, merzaesthetics.com) and Aquamid (Contura, aquamid.com).
The article also mentions that some physicians are using Restylane SubQ in buttock and breast enlargements. This leads me to the next article (full reference below): Macrolane(TM) for breast enhancement: 12-month follow-up. The Swedish study used a new formulation of a stabilized hyaluronic acid-based gel of non-animal origin (NASHA(TM)-based gel) called Macrolane(TM) VRF30) in their open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study.
The aim of this study was to develop a reproducible technique for injecting NASHA-based gel posterior to the mammary gland (subglandular injection), and to assess treatment safety and efficacy. The feasibility of dual-plane submuscular injection was also explored.
Twenty-four non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding women (mean age 37 years) with small breasts were recruited, 20 of whom underwent subglandular injection. Patients were treated in groups of four to enable step-wise revision of the injection technique. Safety and efficacy assessments (12-month follow-up) included adverse event (AE) reporting and the Global Esthetic Improvement Scale, respectively.
It’s a small study with the authors reporting 83% satisfaction in the post-procedure breast appearance at 6 months, 69% at 12 months. I find it interesting that the most commonly reported adverse event was capsular contracture. Obviously, larger studies are needed before this can be routinely recommended to patients.
Dentist are “pushing” their scope of practice beyond the teeth/dentition to include Botox and fillers. While dentists may know how to do injections well and should know facial nerve/muscle anatomy well, I personally feel this is beyond the definition of dental practice. I suppose it will be up to state dental and medical boards to work this out.
The Evolving Role of Dentist in the Injectables Business by Jeff Frentzen, PSP Blog leads you to the full article: The next revolution in dentistry: facial injectables by Bruce G. Freund, DDS, Oct 25, 2010.
Macrolane(TM) for breast enhancement: 12-month follow-up; Per Hedén; Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: POST ACCEPTANCE, 14 October 2010; doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318200ae57; Original Article: PDF Only