The FILLMED® ART FILLER® Line — Everything You Need to Know

The FILLMED® ART FILLER® collection is a family of cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers built on a single formulation platform and split into gels for fine lines, medium-to-deep wrinkles, lips, and facial volume. For practitioners weighing the ART FILLER® range against the products already in their treatment rooms, Doctor Medica has prepared this guide to the full FILLMED® ART FILLER® line, from the softest Fine Lines gel up to FILLMED® ART FILLER® Volume. Clinics planning to buy FILLMED® wholesale usually start by matching each syringe to an indication. This article will explore how each product is formulated, where it is placed, how it performed in

published trials, and how pricing compares across the line.

Key Takeaways

• The five established ART FILLER® formulations in FILLMED®’s product comparison chart share Tri-Hyal® technology, 0.3% lidocaine, and HA concentrations of 20–25 mg/mL. Their differences lie in HA chain ratios, cross-linking rates, and free-HA content.

• Fine Lines is placed in the superficial dermis, Universal and Lips in the moderately deep to deep dermis, and Volume is designed for contour and the facial oval.

• FILLMED®-funded trials found ART FILLER® gels non-inferior to comparable fillers, including Juvéderm® Ultra 3 and Voluma®.

About: Doctor Medica is your trusted supplier of top-quality dermal fillers, viscosupplements, and more for your medical practice. We offer genuine products from leading brands at the lowest prices in the market. If you’re looking to buy FILLMED® ART FILLER® for your practice, contact Doctor Medica today.

What Is the FILLMED® ART FILLER® Range?

The ART FILLER® range was developed, manufactured, and launched by Laboratoires FILLMED® in 2016 [1]. Every gel in it is made from non-animal hyaluronic acid and uses Tri-Hyal® technology, which blends three forms of HA: free (non-cross-linked) HA, long chains, and very long chains [1].

The practical point of Tri-Hyal® is adjustability. FILLMED® describes three “cursors” it can move independently for each product: the ratio of very long to long chains, the cross-linking rate, and the share of free HA [1]. The cross-linked fraction is stabilized with BDDE, the same cross-linker used across most professional filler brands [1]

What Products Make Up the FILLMED® ART FILLER® Line?

FILLMED®’s published product comparison covers three core gels—Fine Lines, Universal, and Volume—alongside two lip-specific formulations, Lips and Lips Soft. The table below summarizes their specifications [1]. ART FILLER® Eyes is also listed in the current UK portfolio.

Product	Main indication	HA (mg/mL)	FILLMED® ART FILLER® syringes per box	Needles supplied
ART FILLER® Fine Lines	Fine lines	20	2 × 1 mL	4 × 30G
ART FILLER® Universal	Medium to deep wrinkles, lips	25	2 × 1.2 mL	4 × 27G
ART FILLER® Volume	Volume and facial oval	25	2 × 1.2 mL	4 × 27G
ART FILLER® Lips Soft	Soft lip volume, contour, perioral wrinkles	25	1 × 1 mL	2 × 30G
ART FILLER® Lips	Lip volume and projection	25	2 × 1 mL	4 × 27G

How each fits within the filler collection:

• ART FILLER® Fine Lines is the entry point for superficial creasing, with the lowest HA concentration in the line.
• ART FILLER® Universal is formulated for medium-to-deep wrinkles and lip enhancement, giving it applications across more than one treatment area [1].
• ART FILLER® Volume is the structural gel, positioned for restoring volume and redefining the jaw and cheek contour.
• The lip menu splits into Lips (projection) and Lips Soft (contour, hydration, perioral wrinkles).

How Do FILLMED® ART FILLER® Products Compare on Ingredients and Potency?

Because four of the five gels carry the same 25 mg/mL concentration, HA content alone says little about potency. The real differences sit in the three Tri-Hyal® variables, which FILLMED® grades on a plus scale [1]:

Product	Very long / long chain ratio	Cross-linking rate	Free HA
Fine Lines	+	+	++++
Universal	++	+++	+++
Volume	+++++	++++	+
Lips Soft	++	+++	+++
Lips	+++	+++	++

Fine Lines has the highest free-HA rating and the lowest cross-linking grade in the comparison. Volume has the highest very-long-chain-to-long-chain ratio and cross-linking grade, consistent with its positioning for facial volume restoration. Universal and Lips Soft share the same published profile, while Lips has a higher very-long-chain-to-long-chain ratio and a lower free-HA rating [1].

Does Lidocaine Content Vary Across the FILLMED® ART FILLER® Line?

All five formulations in FILLMED®’s published comparison contain 0.3% lidocaine hydrochloride [1]. For these products, lidocaine concentration does not distinguish one formulation from another; treatment indication and gel properties are more useful comparison points.

The published ART FILLER® Volume comparative study notes that 0.3% lidocaine is commonly used in HA fillers to reduce injection discomfort, without an observed adverse effect on efficacy or tolerability [4]. Since lidocaine concentration is consistent across the five formulations, their selection should not be based on an assumed difference in anesthetic strength.

All five formulations contain lidocaine [1]. Before treatment, practitioners should consult the applicable product labeling for contraindications and precautions, including known ingredient sensitivities.

What Are the Application Techniques and Treatment Areas?

Injection depth is the clearest divider in the line. In FILLMED®’s registered trial protocol, Fine Lines was placed in the superficial dermis, while Universal and Lips went into the moderately deep to deep dermis [2].

FILLMED® ART FILLER® Fine Lines: Superficial Smoothing

The cited 18-month comparative study evaluated ART FILLER® Fine Lines for crow’s feet, with injections into the superficial dermis [2]. FILLMED® supplies the formulation with 30G needles [1].

FILLMED® ART FILLER® Lips: Projection and Perioral Work

In the multicenter ART FILLER® Lips trial, injectors used either a 27G × 13 mm needle or a 25G × 55 mm cannula, with a cap of 1.0 mL for the lips and 1.0 mL per nasolabial fold [3]. Lips Soft, with its 30G needles, is aimed at the vermilion border and perioral wrinkles rather than projection [1].

FILLMED® ART FILLER® Volume: Contouring and Volume Restoration

Volume is indicated for injection into the subcutaneous plane, supra-periosteal, or into the deep dermis [4]. Its comparative trial covered the midface, temples, and jawline, plus the chin in a non-comparative arm, supporting its use for volume restoration and facial contouring in the treatment areas studied [4].

Refresh Tired Eyes

The ART FILLER® Eyes listing extends the line into the periorbital area for an under-eye filler refresh, and FILLMED® positions it as a dedicated gel to refresh and brighten tired eyes [1]. Published peer-reviewed head-to-head data for this indication are still limited, so clinics onboarding this syringe lean on manufacturer guidance rather than independent trials.

How Does FILLMED® ART FILLER® Compare With Juvéderm® and Teoxane?

Published comparisons provide evidence on how ART FILLER® formulations perform against selected products from Juvéderm® and Teoxane:

• Universal vs Juvéderm® Ultra 3 (nasolabial folds): a split-face, blinded study found ART FILLER® Universal non-inferior, and an extension phase followed subjects out to 18 months [2].
• Fine Lines vs FIRST LINES PureSense by Teoxane (crow’s feet): the same program found ART FILLER® Fine Lines non-inferior to the Teoxane comparator [2].
• Volume vs Juvéderm® Voluma® (midface, temples, jawline): an 18-month randomized single-blind study confirmed non-inferiority across all compared areas [4].

The products differ in formulation technology: Juvéderm® Voluma® uses Vycross® technology, while ART FILLER® uses Tri-Hyal®, combining free and cross-linked HA [4]. FILLMED® also discusses tissue-related effects as part of its ART FILLER® positioning. In the ART FILLER® Lips trial, ultrasound measurements in nasolabial folds showed dermal density increasing from 32.9% at baseline to 50.9% after three months, then measuring 44.6% at 18 months [3].

What Do Clinical Studies Report About ART FILLER® Outcomes?

A few themes recur in the published trial data:

Shorter longevity in the lips. Success at 18 months was 91% for nasolabial folds but 33% for lips, which practitioners factor into touch-up planning [3].

Clean superficial results. In the Fine Lines study, the gel corrected fine lines without irregularities or a Tyndall effect, and about 48% of treated crow’s feet retained at least a one-grade improvement at 18 months [2].

Predictable tolerance. Reported reactions were typical of HA fillers, mostly swelling, bruising, and tenderness, and resolved within days to weeks [3][5].

Who Manufactures the FILLMED® ART FILLER® Line, and How Does Price Compare?

The ART FILLER® line comes from FILLMED® Laboratories, the manufacturer behind the Tri-Hyal® formulation platform [1]. Package size is an important factor in comparing prices: Fine Lines and Lips contain two 1-mL syringes, Universal and Volume contain two 1.2-mL syringes, and Lips Soft contains one 1-mL syringe [1]. Clinics should compare current distributor quotations on both a per-box and per-milliliter basis.

In addition to price, clinics should assess distributor credentials, product documentation, shipping conditions, and compliance with the manufacturer’s labeled storage requirements.

The requirements to purchase FILLMED® ART FILLER® online also vary by jurisdiction, and licensed professionals should confirm what their regional regulations permit before completing an order from any supplier.

Looking to buy FILLMED® ART FILLER® online? Get in touch with our customer service representatives at Doctor Medica for further guidance.

For licensed medical professionals only. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.

Citations

[1] FILLMED UK. ART FILLER® — Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers. https://uk.fillmed.com/art-filler/

[2] Trevidic, Patrick et al. “Objective 18-month Comparison of the Tolerability of 2 Dermal Fillers Formulated with Tri-Hyal Technology.” Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open vol. 8,12 e3274. 9 Dec. 2020, doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003274

[3] Ehlinger-David, Agnès et al. “A prospective multicenter clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid-based filler with Tri-Hyal technology in the treatment of lips and the perioral area.” Journal of cosmetic dermatology vol. 22,2 (2023): 464-472. doi:10.1111/jocd.15169

[4] Braccini, Frederic et al. “Comparative clinical study for the efficacy and safety of two different hyaluronic acid-based fillers with Tri-Hyal versus Vycross technology: A long-term prospective randomized clinical trial.” Journal of cosmetic dermatology vol. 22,2 (2023): 473-485. doi:10.1111/jocd.15200

[5] David, Michel et al. “Long-Term Efficacy and Tolerability of a Medium G’ HA Filler with Tri-Hyal Technology on the Rejuvenation of the Mobile Facial Zone.” Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology vol. 16 1795-1805. 13 Jul. 2023, doi:10.2147/CCID.S395353