Lip augmentation and rejuvenation using a novel, porcine collagen-derived filler

Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, March, 2008 by Marina Landau

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Clinical Experience with Evolence Breeze

A study of 15 patients using the porcine collagen-derived dermal filler Evolence Breeze for lip augmentation and rejuvenation has been performed. Prior to the lip-enhancing procedures, the patients were asked to stop the use of any anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, and those with a previous history of herpes labialis were treated prophylactically with oral acyclovir (400 mg twice daily for 5 days). Regional anesthesia was performed using 1 to 2 mL of 1% lidocaine solution. Injections of Evolence Breeze were performed using a 30G needle after a thorough assessment of lip shape, volume, and condition. After the injection of the dermal filler, the lips were vigorously massaged and iced for 30 minutes. Results were assessed immediately after the procedure and again after 3 weeks and 3 months. Untoward effects were assessed by the physician up to 6 months after the procedure.

All 15 patients were females, with an average age of 52.3 years (range: 42-61 years). Six underwent lip augmentation (with or without nasolabial folds correction) and 9 underwent lip rejuvenation (with or without nasolabial folds correction). The average amount of the filler injected was 1.4 mL (range: 1-2.2 mL).

Results

Three months after the procedure, the results were rated as "very good" by 8 (53%) patients, "good" by 5 (33%) patients, and "satisfactory" by 2 (13%) patients. (Table 1) Some clinical results are shown in Figures 3, 5, and 6.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Conclusions

There were several advantages of Evolence Breeze, as assessed by the physician after 6 months of follow-up. Contrary to the previous experience with hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers, which produced significant swelling of the lips following the treatment, only minimal swelling was noted after injecting Evolence Breeze into the lips. Although some transient lumpiness of the lips was observed initially, it disappeared spontaneously by week 4. Touch-up injections were given to 3 patients at the 2-week follow-up visit. In all patients, a natural look was achieved and filler material could not be palpated.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

In all cases, the cosmetic effect was maintained up to the last visit at 6 months after the injection.

Disclosure

Supported by ColBar LifeScience Ltd, Herzliya, Israel, and by OrthoNeutrogena.

References

1. Sutter RE Jr, Turley PK. Soft tissue evaluation of contemporary Caucasian and African American female facial profiles. Angle Orthod. 1998;68:487-496.

2. Maloney BP. Cosmetic surgery of the lip. Facial Plast Surg. 1996;12:265-278.

3. Burstone C. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967;53:262-284.

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Marina Landau MD

Joshua Ben Nun Street

56 Herzliya Pituach

Israel 46763

Phone: +972 9 950-5151

Fax: +972 9 954-4579

e-mail: mlandau@zahav.net.il

Marina Landau MD

Dermatology Unit, Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel

Table 1. Patient satisfaction ratings of the lip augmentation or
rejuvenation procedure at 3 months.

Patient       Age                    Nasolabial Folds
Number   Sex  (years)  Indication    Correction

 1       F    42       Augmentation  No
 2       F    57       Rejuvenation  No
 3       F    60       Rejuvenation  No
 4       F    55       Rejuvenation  Yes
 5       F    55       Rejuvenation  Yes
 6       F    47       Augmentation  No
 7       F    59       Rejuvenation  Yes
 8       F    43       Augmentation  No
 9       F    44       Augmentation  Yes
10       F    61       Rejuvenation  Yes
11       F    58       Rejuvenation  No
12       F    57       Rejuvenation  No
13       F    44       Augmentation  No
14       F    47       Augmentation  No
15       F    56       Rejuvenation  Yes

Patient  Amount of    Touch-up    Patient Satisfaction
Number   Filler (mL)  in 2 Weeks  at 3 Months

 1       1            No          Very good
 2       1.5          No          Very good
 3       1            Yes         Good
 4       2            No          Very good
 5       2            No          Very good
 6       1.2          No          Very good
 7       2            No          Good
 8       1            No          Good
 9       1            Yes         Satisfactory
10       2.2          No          Very good
11       1            Yes         Good
12       1            No          Very good
13       1.4          No          Good
14       1.2          No          Satisfactory
15       1.8          No          Very good