Juvederm vs Restylane for Nasolabial Folds: Which Filler Performs Better?

About The Study

This study provides a direct Juvederm vs Restylane for nasolabial folds comparison in a mixed-gender group of 124 Chinese patients. Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of both fillers by treating one side of each participant’s face with Juvederm Ultra Plus and the other side with Restylane. The severity of each participant’s nasolabial folds was evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, with follow-up sessions at one month, six months, nine months, and one year. At the one-month follow-up, participants could receive a touch-up treatment of up to 0.5 ml per nasolabial fold if needed.

The study participants were classed as responders six months after treatment if their nasolabial folds improved by at least one point. To check safety, the patients recorded responses at the treatment site for the first 28 days, and the doctors were asked to rate the ease of use of the filler and whether there were any medical device or needle malfunctions during the procedure.

Juvederm vs Restylane for Nasolabial Folds: Study Results

The practitioner performing the injections determined how much filler was needed for effective treatment. Restylane required an average of 1.0 ml of filler, ranging from 0.3 ml to 1.5 ml, while Juvederm required an average of 0.8 ml of filler, ranging from 0.3 ml to 1.5 ml. A smaller number of Juvederm patients required follow-up treatments after one month, at 27 versus 29. Juvederm required less volume for treatment, a potential advantage for patients who are hoping to save money by purchasing a smaller amount of filler.

Although Restylane did have one device malfunction, Juvederm had none. Almost twice as many initial Juvederm injections were rated as very easy to handle by practitioners.

The Juvederm vs Restylane for nasolabial folds results showed similarly high effectiveness for both fillers, with a slight advantage for Juvederm in several measured outcomes.

The main goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Juvederm Ultra Plus when treating nasolabial folds. Six months after treatment, 90.4% of the Juvederm recipients had at least one point improvement in their nasolabial fold severity. This is compared to 89.6% of the Restylane recipients. In the Chinese population, Juvederm may be more effective at correcting nasolabial folds, resulting in a more youthful appearance.

Although the doctors saw measurable improvements in their patient’s wrinkles, what matters most is how the patients feel about their treatment. At the six month mark, 87.3% of Juvederm patients reported visible improvements versus 83.9% of Restylane patients. Almost half of the study participants noticed a difference between the fold treated with Juvederm and the fold treated with Restylane, and of these patients, 62.1% preferred the nasolabial fold injected with Juvederm. Overall, patients were happier with their Juvederm results.

When considering safety, the same number of patients reported minor side effects with Juvederm as with Restylane. Swelling and tenderness occurred with both fillers, but Juvederm recipients were more likely to experience firmness while Restylane recipients were more likely to experience lumps. Restylane recipients were more likely to experience severe treatment site responses, but Juvederm’s responses seemed to last longer, likely due to its larger needle size.

Juvederm vs Restylane 

This study suggests that Juvederm Ultra Plus is better for treating nasolabial folds than Restylane, at least in Chinese patients. Practitioners found that Juvederm is easy to use, requires less filler, has fewer severe side effects, and offers better results. 

Safety considerations can also vary across products within the Juvederm range. Patients and practitioners researching other formulations may therefore want to review Juvederm Volite side effects when comparing treatment options and their potential adverse reactions.

Conclusion

Overall, the Juvederm vs Restylane for nasolabial folds comparison suggests that both fillers are effective, although Juvederm Ultra Plus showed several advantages in this particular study population. However, Juvederm showed several potential advantages in this group of Chinese patients, including slightly higher improvement rates, lower average filler volume, easier handling for practitioners, and stronger patient preference at the six-month follow-up.

While these findings favor Juvederm in this particular study population, treatment choice should still be based on individual facial anatomy, wrinkle severity, treatment goals, and practitioner assessment.

FAQ

What does the Juvederm vs Restylane for nasolabial folds comparison show?

In this study, Juvederm Ultra Plus showed slightly higher improvement rates, required less average filler volume, and was preferred by more patients at the six-month follow-up. However, both fillers produced strong results.

How much filler is needed for nasolabial folds?

The study reported an average of about 0.8 ml of Juvederm and 1.0 ml of Restylane per treated nasolabial fold, although the amount varied depending on individual treatment needs.

Do Juvederm and Restylane have similar side effects?

Both fillers were associated with temporary treatment-site reactions such as swelling and tenderness. Juvederm recipients reported more firmness, while Restylane recipients were more likely to report lumps and severe local reactions in this study.

Citations

[1] Li, Dong, et al. “Safety and Effectiveness of Juvéderm Ultra Plus Injectable Gel in Correcting Severe Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017, e1133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28203492/