4.0 Article

Investigation of the Degradation-Retarding Effect Caused by the Low Swelling Capacity of a Novel Hyaluronic Acid Filler Developed by Solid-Phase Crosslinking Technology

期刊

ANNALS OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 357-362

出版社

KOREAN DERMATOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.5021/ad.2014.26.3.357

关键词

Degradation; Hyaluronic acid; Resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A variety of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers demonstrate unique physical characteristics, which affect the quality of the HA filler products. The critical factors that affect the degradation of HA gels have not yet been determined. Objective: Our objective was to determine the characteristics of HA gels that affect their resistance to the degradation caused by radicals and enzymes. Methods: Three types of HA fillers for repairing deep wrinkles, Juvederm Ultra Plus (J-U), Restylane Perlane (Perlane), and Cleviel, were tested in this study. The resistance of these HA fillers to enzymatic degradation was measured by carbazole and displacement assays using hyaluronidase as the enzyme. The resistance of these fillers to radical degradation was measured by the displacement assay using H2O2. Results: Different tests for evaluating the degradation resistance of HA gels can yield different results. The filler most susceptible to enzymatic degradation was J-U, followed by Perlane and Cleviel. The HA filler showing the highest degree of degradation caused by H2O2-treatment was Perlane, followed by J-U, and then Cleviel. Cleviel showed higher enzymatic and radical resistances than J-U and Perlane did. Furthermore, it exhibited the highest resistance to heat and the lowest swelling ratio among all the fillers that were examined. Conclusion: The main factor determining the degradation of HA particles is the gel swelling ratio, which is related to the particle structure of the gel. Our in vitro assays suggest that the decrease in the swelling ratio will lead to a retarding effect on the degradation of HA fillers.

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

4.0
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