Advancements in Aesthetic Injectables: Efficacy, Safety, and Mechanisms of Dermal Fillers, Neuromodulators, and Biostimulants

Author Name: Sobia Munir

Email: [email protected]

Abstract Aesthetic injectable therapies, encompassing dermal fillers, neuromodulators, and biostimulants, have transformed non-surgical cosmetic options for facial and body rejuvenation. Since their initial FDA approvals for cosmetic use in the early 2000s, these minimally invasive therapies have gained widespread adoption, driven by advancements in dermatology and patient demand for low-risk, high-efficacy treatments. The objective of this review is to analyze the efficacy, mechanisms, and safety of leading injectables in 2024, including hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), and botulinum toxin types A and B. HA fillers provide immediate hydration and volume through water-binding, while PLLA and CaHA serve as collagen stimulators offering progressive volumization. Botulinum toxin neuromodulators reduce wrinkles by temporarily inhibiting nerve signals to muscles. Safety protocols have evolved alongside these injectables, with innovations like ultrasound-guided injections, improved cross-linking for HA, and optimized PLLA distribution techniques enhancing patient outcomes and reducing adverse events. Global market projections indicate that demand will continue to rise, with injectables expected to reach USD 24.13 billion by 2030. The sustained popularity of these procedures is attributable to rapid, natural-looking results and the avoidance of surgical intervention, meeting the growing preference for youthful aesthetics with minimal downtime. This review underscores how advancements in composition and application techniques contribute to the safety, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction of modern aesthetic injectable.

Keywords: Dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid fillers, collagen biostimulants, facial rejuvenation, ultrasound-guided injections, non-surgical aesthetics.

1.???? Introduction

Aesthetic injectable therapies are non-surgical procedures for enhancing facial and body aesthetics by delivering substances such as fillers, neuromodulators, and biostimulants within the skin. Aesthetic injectable therapies including dermal fillers and neuromodulators like botulinum toxin were introduced in 19th century.1 Botulinum toxin gained FDA approval for cosmetic use in 2002 and hyaluronic acid fillers approval is documented in 2003. Such therapies evolved from advancements in dermatology and plastic surgery and are offering non-surgical rejuvenation options. These treatments are now frequently being used to solve skin wrinkles and its volume loss, and skin laxity, providing minimally invasive alternative to surgical options. Global aesthetic injectable market has valued USD 13.4 billion in 2022 projected to reach USD 24.13 billion by 2030 which is driven by rising patient demand for non-invasive procedures.2-4 This surge is great for minimal recovery time of these procedures and reduced risk compared to surgery and more natural-looking results they offer also make these fillers a viable option. Dermal fillers such as hyaluronic acid is mostly used to restore facial volume while neuromodulators like botulinum toxin are used for relaxing muscles to reduce wrinkles. Biostimulants including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are widely known for its abilities to enhance collagen production while promoting skin rejuvenation.5 In 2024 over 19.1 million non-surgical procedures were performed at international level with injectables making up 70% of these treatments, statics declared. Increasing focus on looking youthful with minimal downtime and the growing availability of customizable options have made these therapies popular.6,7 Most patients prefer these treatments because they are more effective safe, and offer rapid results and further fueling the demand for aesthetic injectable therapies. Aesthetic injectable therapies are popular because they offer a less invasive, non-surgical solution for aging symptoms like volume loss and wrinkles. These procedures are a desirable choice for people looking for non-surgical cosmetic modifications since they provide rapid results, short recovery times, and results that look natural. Because aesthetic injectable therapies offer a minimally invasive, non-surgical solution for aging indicators like wrinkles and volume loss, people select them. These procedures are a desirable alternative for people looking for non-surgical cosmetic enhancements since they provide rapid results, short recovery times, and results that look natural.

2.???? Dermal Fillers

Dermal fillers are mostly used to restore lost volume of the skin, smooth wrinkles and enhance facial contours. Most common type is hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers which bind to water molecules in the skin, providing hydration and volume. Other fillers like collagen stimulators e.g., Poly-L-lactic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite also known as CaHA promote collagen production and provide longer-lasting effects. Fillers can be used at areas such as the cheeks, lips and nasolabial folds and immediate results can be seen with minimal downtime. Dermal fillers are injectable substances used to restore volume, smooth wrinkles, and enhance facial contours. Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are most common type of dermal fillers and other types of dermal fillers which are also publically accepted are collagen stimulators like Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA). Each type of dermal filler works through different mechanisms and has unique safety and efficacy profiles.8

?

2.1 Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Fillers

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is naturally occurring polysaccharide which is also found in our connective tissues and skin and areas of eyes. Because HA fillers are hydrophilic, they bond to water molecules, increasing extracellular space and instantly volumizing cells. Because of its molecular profile, HA can interact with collagen and elastin fibers to preserve skin turgidity and promote structural support.9 HA fillers work through cross-linking, and for prolong their degradation and to enhance their structural integrity, HA is chemically modified using cross-linking agents like BDDE 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether. This cross-linking prevents rapid enzymatic breakdown by hyaluronidase and help to make it durable for long lasting results.10 HA interacts with water at its molecular level via hydrogen bonding which also accounts for its ability to retain moisture and expand up to 1,000 times its original volume which creates hydrophilic gel matrix that enhances tissue volume. By interacting with cellular receptors such as CD44, HA helps to activate fibroblasts, which enhances tissue structure even further. Research from 2024 indicates that HA fillers are quite successful in reducing wrinkles and restoring volume right away. They are among the safest choices because they can be reversed using hyaluronidase. Studies reveal that because HA is biocompatible, there aren't many immunological reactions. Homogenized particle size and improved cross-linking ratios are recent developments that improve safety by lowering the possibility of migration and nodules. HA fillers usually last six to eighteen months, depending on the depth of injection and cross-linking.11,12

?

2.2 Poly-L-lactic Acid (PLLA) Collagen Stimulators

Poly-L-lactic acid is synthetic biodegradable polymer which is also collagen stimulator. Unlike HA, PLLA does not provide immediate volume but it induces collagen production over time and PLLA particles are injected into the dermis. These particles then undergo a process of hydrolysis which means breaking down into lactic acid monomers and these monomers stimulate the body's fibroblasts to produce new collagen while increasing dermal thickness and restoring volume. At a molecular level PLLA induces a mild inflammatory response and cause fibroblast proliferation and upregulation of collagen type I synthesis. Over a period of weeks to months, newly formed collagen replaces lost structural proteins into skin while providing more natural and long-lasting volumization of the skin. PLLA has excellent efficacy in treating volume loss and it is frequently used in conditions like HIV-associated lipoatrophy. Gradual collagen deposition creates more natural results over 6-12 months. Current evidences of 2024 emphacize importance of proper injection technique to avoid granuloma formation which is a side effect associated with PLLA. Pre-hydrating PLLA particles and ensuring even distribution during injection have been identified as crucial safety measures and the effects of PLLA last up to 24 months with most patients requiring multiple treatments over time for optimal results.13,14

2.3 Calcium Hydroxylapatite (CaHA)

Calcium hydroxylapatite is mineral compound which mimics naturally occurring bone mineral components and when it is injected CaHA microspheres are suspended in gel-like carrier to provide immediate structural support. Carrier gel dissolve over time and CaHA particles stimulate collagen production in a manner similar to PLLA. CaHA microspheres acts as scaffold for fibroblasts and encourage collagen deposition around injection site. At CaHA molecular level, it also induce collagen synthesis which is believed to be related to activation of growth factors and upregulation of matrix metalloproteinases that remodel extracellular matrix components.15 CaHA fillers are non-animal-based and biocompatible with an excellent safety profile. They are not reversible which requires precise placement by experienced injectorsStudies from 2024 emphasize how the filler's lifetime and risk profile are influenced by the size and distribution of its particles. Complications including vascular blockage and nodule formation have decreased with proper injection procedures. Results are maintained over time by the progressive collagen creation of CaHA fillers, which last 12 to 18 months.16

?

2.4 Safety Considerations of Dermal Fillers 2024 Research

All three fillers HA, PLLA and CaHA are biocompatible, minimizing risk of immune rejection and research indicates careful screening for autoimmune conditions and allergies along with pre-treatment protocols e.g., patch tests for sensitive patients which enhances patient safety. In 2024 advancements in ultrasound-guided filler injections have greatly improved dermal fillers safety in? preventing serious complications like vascular occlusion. Ultrasound helps practitioners visualize blood vessels in real-time while preventing inadvertent intravascular injections.17 In cases of occlusion HA fillers are liquefied using hyaluronidase making them safer in terms of reversibility. Increased awareness of biofilm formation which is bacterial infection risk associated with long-lasting fillers like PLLA and CaHA has led to the development of antibiotic prophylaxis protocols for high-risk patients. For granuloma formation there are now available modern injection techniques e.g., microcannula injections and these have reduced incidence rates by ensuring smooth and even distribution of the filler. Newer dermal fillers with better particle size control and innovative cross-linking technologies have been approved by the US FDA repeatedly which lowers adverse effects and improves the products' long-term safety. The goal of ongoing research is to optimize filler compositions in order to minimize problems, increase lifespan, and reduce associated swellings.17-19

3. Neuromodulators

3.1 Botulinum Toxin

Botulinum toxin, a widely recognized neuromodulator, works by temporarily blocking nerve signals to the muscles, which helps to reduce dynamic wrinkles. It is commonly used on the forehead, between the eyebrows (glabellar lines), and around the eyes (crow’s feet). Several forms of botulinum toxins exist, with Type A (e.g., Botox, Dysport) being the most frequently utilized. These neuromodulators are considered effective and safe, delivering rapid, visible results. Botulinum toxins like BoNT-A (e.g., Botox, Dysport, Xeomin) and BoNT-B (e.g., Myobloc) block nerve signals to muscles, causing temporary paralysis or weakening of specific muscle groups, thus minimizing the appearance of dynamic wrinkles such as frown lines and crow’s feet.1?

3.2 BoNT-A Neuromodulators

BoNT-A neuromodulators prevent the release of acetylcholine (ACh) at the neuromuscular junction, inhibiting muscle contraction. At the molecular level, botulinum toxin cleaves SNARE proteins, targeting synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25), essential for neurotransmitter vesicle fusion with the nerve terminal membrane. By blocking ACh release, BoNT-A induces temporary muscle paralysis, effectively relaxing dynamic wrinkles. The effect begins within 3-5 days, peaking around 1-2 weeks, and can last between 3 and 6 months, depending on the formulation and dosage. BoNT-A neuromodulators have a well-documented safety profile.2??22 Advances in 2024 emphasize optimized dosage and precise injection techniques to enhance outcomes while reducing adverse effects. Muscle function is gradually restored after 3-6 months as the toxin breaks down and new nerve terminals form.21?23

3.3 BoNT-B Neuromodulators

BoNT-B, found in products such as Myobloc, operates similarly to BoNT-A but targets the vesicle-associated membrane protein (VAMP), also known as synaptobrevin, instead of SNAP-25. While BoNT-B also prevents ACh release and induces muscle paralysis, it typically has a faster onset but shorter duration compared to BoNT-A. BoNT-B is commonly used in patients who develop resistance to BoNT-A due to the formation of neutralizing antibodies. BoNT-B's effects typically last between 2-4 months, making it a suitable option for resistant cases.23?2?

3.4 DaxibotulinumtoxinA (Daxi)

DaxibotulinumtoxinA, a novel BoNT-A formulation, is specifically designed for extended action. It operates by cleaving SNAP-25 and inhibiting ACh release, similar to traditional BoNT-A products. However, Daxi contains a proprietary peptide-based excipient that enhances its receptor binding, leading to a longer duration of effect. Studies indicate that Daxi provides results lasting 6-9 months, which reduces the frequency of injections. The safety profile of Daxi is comparable to other BoNT-A products, with injection site reactions being the most common side effect.2?,2?

3.5 Mechanisms of Resistance and Safety of Neuromodulators

Some individuals may develop resistance to BoNT-A due to the formation of neutralizing antibodies that reduce its efficacy. Research has explored protein-free formulations, such as Xeomin, which minimize the risk of antibody development by eliminating complexing proteins. While neuromodulators are generally safe, improper injection techniques can result in rare vascular complications.2? A 2024 advancement involves high-resolution ultrasound-guided injections, which avoid critical blood vessels and improve safety. Additionally, identifying anatomical danger zones around sensitive areas, such as the eyes and lips, has further mitigated risks. Optimizing dosage and injection depth also helps to prevent unintended muscle paralysis or diffusion of the toxin to adjacent areas.2?,3?

4.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Biostimulants

Biostimulants are injectables that encourage the body’s collagen production, leading to gradual improvements in skin volume and texture. Unlike dermal fillers, which provide immediate volume, biostimulants stimulate natural collagen synthesis, offering longer-lasting but slower results. Key biostimulants include Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), Calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), and Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).

4.1 Poly-L-lactic Acid (PLLA)

PLLA is a biodegradable synthetic polymer used in dissolvable sutures for decades. When injected, PLLA particles serve as scaffolds, triggering a controlled inflammatory response that activates fibroblasts to produce collagen types I and III, vital for skin elasticity. At the molecular level, PLLA undergoes hydrolysis, releasing lactic acid monomers, which further enhance collagen production. PLLA is metabolized over time, with newly formed collagen remaining to improve skin texture and volume. Clinical studies highlight its efficacy in treating volume loss in areas like the cheeks, temples, and jawline, with results lasting up to 2 years. New methods emphasize the use of diluted PLLA solutions and post-injection massages to minimize risks, such as granuloma formation.

4.2 Calcium Hydroxylapatite (CaHA)

CaHA consists of calcium and phosphate ions suspended in a gel that provides immediate volume while stimulating collagen production. These calcium ions activate fibroblasts, promoting collagen types I and III, leading to improved skin firmness and elasticity. CaHA is especially effective for deep wrinkles and jawline contouring, with results lasting 12-18 months.

4.3 Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA)

PMMA is a synthetic, non-biodegradable polymer composed of microspheres suspended in a collagen matrix. Upon injection, these microspheres form a permanent structure beneath the skin, surrounded by natural collagen production. Unlike PLLA and CaHA, PMMA does not break down over time, offering a permanent solution for volume loss in areas such as nasolabial folds and acne scars.3? PMMA poses a higher risk of overcorrection or nodule formation due to its permanent nature, and its use is limited to skilled injectors. Advances in 2024 focus on refining PMMA microsphere formulations for smoother results. PMMA is typically used in patients requiring long-term correction, with its effects sustained by ongoing collagen production.

?

5.???? Discussion

Injectable aesthetic treatments efficacy such as neuromodulators and dermal fillers is closely tied to advancements in technique and individualized patient care. Botulinum toxin and other neuromodulators are still useful for dynamic wrinkles, but when used in conjunction with layered injection techniques and microdosing, patient outcomes greatly improve. Hyaluronic acid (HA) and other modern fillers continuously show good satisfaction ratings for facial contouring; however, more recent developments like as poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) biostimulants prolong benefits by promoting the creation of endogenous collagen. These agents are valued for their ability to offer gradual yet long-lasting improvements with evidence showing a 90% satisfaction rate for HA treatments targeting nasolabial folds. More Deeper analysis of various injectables show differences in durability and treatment frequency. HA fillers? require maintenance every 6-12 months while PLLA and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) offer longer-lasting results by promoting tissue regeneration over 12-24 months. Longevity variance is crucial when tailoring treatment to side effects HA fillers, vascular occlusion, cannulas, pre-injection aspiration, hyaluronidase, vascular complications, corticosteroids, antibiotics, regulatory oversight, off-label use, Good Manufacturing Practices, quality control measures, batch-to-batch stability patient goals as neuromodulators provide faster results for dynamic wrinkles but demand repeat sessions every 4-8 weeks. PLLA stands out for extended efficacy in skin rejuvenation though clinical outcomes may take longer to manifest.

With adverse effects ranging from minor bruising to major issues like vascular occlusion, safety is still a major concern, especially with HA fillers. By lowering the chance of vascular damage, the increasing use of methods like cannulas and pre-injection aspiration has increased safety. Hyaluronidase application in managing vascular complications of HA fillers is now a well-established safety measure while timely intervention with corticosteroids or antibiotics is essential in managing inflammatory responses. Injectable treatments are still shaped by regulatory scrutiny, especially when it comes to off-label use. Manufacturers are now under more pressure to strictly follow Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) in order to ensure product consistency. At the same time, new quality control techniques concentrate on guaranteeing batch-to-batch stability, which is essential for reducing patient outcome variability. Innovations in injection technology such as robotic-assisted tools and microinjection systems are gaining ground for their ability to enhance precision and minimize complications as these novel devices offer real-time adjustments in volume and depth and allow for more tailored and consistent results. Bioengineered injectables incorporating slow-releasing agents or bioactive peptides are also emerging which gives dual benefit of immediate aesthetic improvement and long-term skin health. Looking ahead, regenerative therapies are reshaping the landscape of aesthetic medicine. New possibilities for tissue repair and volumization have been made possible by the combination of nanofat grafting with stem-cell-derived components. In addition to improving skin quality, regenerative techniques such as mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) injections also reduce inflammation and encourage healing. Trend toward combination therapies, blending neuromodulators, biostimulants, and energy-based devices is now further expanding scope of rejuvenation rapidly by addressing multiple skin issues and providing most appropriate solutions.

6.???? Conclusion

The field of advanced injectable aesthetics continues to expand with the use of dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, and biostimulants to enhance facial rejuvenation and treat volume loss. Hyaluronic acid and collagen-based fillers offer non-surgical options with controlled outcomes, while ultrasound-guided techniques improve precision, particularly for deep or complex injections. As patient demand for minimally invasive procedures grows, these injectable treatments present safe, effective solutions with limited downtime. However, achieving optimal results requires skilled application, an understanding of facial anatomy, and personalized treatment plans. Ongoing advancements suggest an evolving role for injectables in aesthetic medicine, offering versatile, tailored care.

7.? References

1.???? Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Dover JS, Alam M, Ibrahim O. Procedures in Cosmetic Dermatology: Botulinum Toxin-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2022 Oct 29.

2.???? Carruthers JD, Glogau RG, Blitzer A. Advances in facial rejuvenation: botulinum toxin type a, hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, and combination therapies–-consensus recommendations. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2008 May 1;121(5):5S-30S.

3.???? U.S. aesthetic medicine market size, share & trends analysis report by procedure type (invasive procedures, non-invasive procedures), by age (19 and under, 20-29, 30-39, 40-54, 55-69, 70+), by metropolitan cities, and segment forecasts, 2024 - 2030 [Internet]. Grandviewresearch.com. [cited 2024 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-aesthetic-medicine-market-report

4.???? Aesthetic injectable market size to reach $24.13Bn by 2030 [Internet]. Grandviewresearch.com. [cited 2024 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-aesthetic-injectable-market

5.???? Zarbafian M, Fabi SG, Dayan S, Goldie K. The emerging field of regenerative aesthetics—where we are now. Dermatologic Surgery. 2022 Jan 1;48(1):101-8.

6.???? Global Survey 2023: full report and press releases. (n.d.). ISAPS. https://www.isaps.org/discover/about-isaps/global-statistics/global-survey-2023-full-report-and-press-releases/

7.???? Mann, D. (2024, June 13). And the 2023 Winner Is . . . Botulinum Toxin Injections Top ISAPS’ List of the Most Popular Non-surgical Cosmetic Procedures in the World. The Dermatology Digest. https://thedermdigest.com/and-the-2023-winner-is-botulinum-toxin-injections-top-isaps-list-of-the-most-popular-non-surgical-cosmetic-procedures-in-the-world/

8.???? Hanke CW. Evolution of filler materials in dermatology. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2013 May 1;68(5):858-9.

9.???? Montero A, Atienza C, Elvira C, Jorcano JL, Velasco D. Hyaluronic acid-fibrin hydrogels show improved mechanical stability in dermo-epidermal skin substitutes. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2021 Sep 1;128:112352.

10.? Faivre J, Pigweh AI, Iehl J, Maffert P, Goekjian P, Bourdon F. Crosslinking hyaluronic acid soft-tissue fillers: Current status and perspectives from an industrial point of view. Expert Review of Medical Devices. 2021 Dec 2;18(12):1175-87.

11.? Wongprasert P, Dreiss CA, Murray G. Evaluating hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: A critique of current characterization methods. Dermatologic therapy. 2022 Jun;35(6):e15453.

12.? Injectable fillers guide. (2024, September 11). ABCS. https://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/procedure-learning-center/non-surgical/injectable-fillers-guide/

13.? Cabral LR, Teixeira LN, Gimenez RP, Demasi AP, de Brito Junior RB, de Araújo VC, Martinez EF. Effect of hyaluronic acid and poly-l-lactic acid dermal fillers on collagen synthesis: an in vitro and in vivo study. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. 2020 Sep 29:701-10.

14.? Amselem M, Fatsea D, Forte R, Hasen?hrl C, Haus A, Salaabian A. Safety and effectiveness results of an innovative injectable poly‐L‐lactic acid‐based collagen stimulator (Lanluma?)—Clinical outcomes at 9 months in a post‐market study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2024.

15.? Corduff N. Introducing aesthetic regenerative scaffolds: An immunological perspective. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2023 Mar;22:8-14.

16.? Palermo EC, Anzai A. Calcium hydroxyapatite for face. Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Procedures: A Guide for Dermatologists and Plastic Surgeons. 2020:487-97.

17.? Funt DK. Nonsurgical Facial Enhancement and Rejuvenation—Fillers, Neurotoxins, and Fat Transfers. Tips and Tricks in Plastic Surgery. 2022:85-110.

18.? Molina, B., Romano, D., Zazzaron, M., Kramer, E., Cigni, C., Grimolizzi, F., & Bellia, G. (2024). Full face tailored treatments using hyaluronan Dermal fillers: Biophysical characterization for safe and effective approaches. Cosmetics, 11(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11040144

19.? Allen, J., & Dodou, K. (2024). Current knowledge and regulatory framework on the use of hyaluronic acid for aesthetic injectable skin rejuvenation treatments. Cosmetics, 11(2), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11020054

20.? Edition T, Benedetto AV. Botulinum Toxins in Clinical Aesthetic Practice.

21.? Davies S. Design of a Cell-based In Vitro Assay for the Pharmaceutical Potency Testing of Botulinum Neurotoxin Type-A.

22.? Berry MG. Botulinum Toxin in Clinical Practice. Springer International Publishing; 2021 Sep 7.

23.? Dima L, B?lan A, Moga MA, Dinu CG, Dimienescu OG, Varga I, Neculau AE. Botulinum toxin a valuable prophylactic agent for migraines and a possible future option for the prevention of hormonal variations-triggered migraines. Toxins. 2019 Aug 8;11(8):465.

24.? Bentovglio AR, Bagella CF, Albanese A. Botulinum toxin in movement disorders. Parkinson’s disease & movement disorders, 6th edn. Wolters Kluver, Philadelphia. 2015:480-95.

25.? Jabbari B. Botulinum toxin treatment of pain disorders. New York, NY, USA:: Springer; 2015 Mar 23.

26.? Brin MF, Nelson M, Ashourian N, Brideau-Andersen A, Maltman J. Update on Non-Interchangeability of Botulinum Neurotoxin Products. Toxins. 2024 Jun 10;16(6):266.

27.? Okun, M. S., MD. (2024). DaxibotulinumtoxinA has long response duration in cervical dystonia. www.jwatch.org. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm-jw.NA57191

28.? Buck II DW. Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2023 Sep 18.

29.? Schelke L. Strategies to Improve the Safety of Filler Treatments.

30.? Hong GW, Hu H, Chang K, Park Y, Lee KW, Chan LK, Yi KH. Adverse Effects Associated with Dermal Filler Treatments: Part II Vascular Complication. Diagnostics. 2024 Jul 18;14(14):1555.

?

?