Juvederm vs Restylane For Nasolabial Folds: Juvederm Wins Study Finds

picture showing juvederm better than restylane on chinese woman

About The Study

Since a previous study had found coarse wrinkles to be among the strongest signals of perceived age in Chinese women, a group of researchers tested the popular filler, along with Restylane for comparison, in 124 Chinese women and men. For the study, the researchers assessed the severity of each participant's nasolabial folds on a scale of 1 to 5. Doctors treated each participant with Juvederm Ultra Plus on one side and Restylane on the other side, then followed up after one month, six months, nine months, and a year. After one month, the participants were allowed to have a touch-up treatment up to 1.5 ml, up to 0.5 ml per nasolabial fold if needed.

The study participants were classed as a responder 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.

The Study Results

The practitioner performing the injections determined how much filler they needed to use for effective treatment, and it turns out that Restylane required an average of 1.0 ml of filler, ranging from 0.3 ml to 1.5 ml, while Juvederm only required an average of 0.8 ml of filler, ranging from 0.3 ml to 1.5 ml. Slightly fewer Juvederm patients required follow-up treatments after one month, at 27 versus 29. It seems that Juvederm required less volume for treatment, a potential advantage for practitioners or their patients who are hoping to save money by using less 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, so it seems more practitioners enjoyed using Juvederm than Restylane.

The main goal of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Juvederm Ultra Plus for 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. It seems that 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. As 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. It seems that patients were happier with their Juvederm results.

Safety is also important, and about 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 Is Better Than Restylane When Treating Nasolabial Folds In Chinese Patients

This study seems to suggest Juvederm Ultra Plus is better for treating nasolabial folds than Restylane, at least in Chinese patients. More practitioners found Juvederm to be easy to use, less filler was required, there were fewer severe side effects, and practitioners and patients seemed to see better results with Juvederm versus Restylane. All this adds up to suggest Juvederm may be a better choice in this type of wrinkle with this demographic.


Note on articles: These articles are not endorsed by DoctorMedica nor reviewed for medical accuracy. Similarly, views and opinions expressed are those of the author only. Articles are meant for informational purposes only. Ask your doctor for professional medical advice.


Contact us
Mon-Fri 9am to 6pm EST
Email info@doctormedica.co
Phone 1-866-343-2413
Fax 1-888-793-2862