4.6 Article

Multidose Hyaluronidase Administration as an Optimal Procedure to Degrade Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Soft Tissue Fillers

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28031003

关键词

hyaluronic acid; hyaluronidase; soft tissue filler; enzymatic degradation; rheology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a novel rheological procedure was used to evaluate the degradation kinetics of TEOSYAL RHA((R)) filler in contact with HAase. Mathematical analyses were developed to determine the optimal time between injections and number of enzymatic units for maximizing degradation kinetics.
Minimally invasive hyaluronan (HA) tissue fillers are routinely employed to provide tissue projection and correct age-related skin depressions. HA fillers can advantageously be degraded by hyaluronidase (HAase) administration in case of adverse events. However, clear guidelines regarding the optimal dosage and mode of administration of HAase are missing, leaving a scientific gap for practitioners in their daily practice. In this study, we implemented a novel rheological procedure to rationally evaluate soft tissue filler degradability and optimize their degradation kinetics. TEOSYAL RHA((R)) filler degradation kinetics in contact with HAase was monitored in real-time by rheological time sweeps. Gels were shown to degrade as a function of enzymatic activity, HA concentration, and BDDE content, with a concomitant loss of their viscoelastic properties. We further demonstrated that repeated administration of small HAase doses improved HA degradation kinetics over large single doses. Mathematical analyses were developed to evaluate the degradation potential of an enzyme. Finally, we tuned the optimal time between injections and number of enzymatic units, maximizing degradation kinetics. In this study, we have established a scientific rationale for the degradation of HA fillers by multidose HAase administration that could serve as a basis for future clinical management of adverse events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据