Randomized study evaluates chin augmentation outcomes of hyaluronic acid fillers in a post-market setting, indicating effective results.
Background: This post-marketing study evaluated the clinical performance and safety of Belotero ® Volume (CPM-V) and Belotero ® Volume Lidocaine (CPM-V+) for chin augmentation in a real-world setting. Methods: This prospective, open-label, randomized study was carried out in Germany. Participants seeking chin augmentation received treatment with CPM-V (n=58) or CPM-V+ (n=63), with an optional touch-up 4 weeks after. The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in chin volume (mL) from baseline to 12 weeks after the last injection (Week 12 or Week 16 for participants with touch-up treatment), measured by validated 3D facial imaging. Secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in the glabella-subnasale-pogonion (G-Sn-Pg) angle (°), the investigator- and participant-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scales (iGAIS/pGAIS) scores, the investigator-assessed Merz Aesthetics Scale (MAS) for chin projection, and participant satisfaction with treatment evaluated by FACE-Q – Satisfaction with Chin. Safety was assessed through adverse event reporting. Results: From baseline to Week 12/16, chin volume increased by a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 2.5 (0.2) mL (95% confidence interval 2.1, 2.9; p< 0.0001) and mean (SD) G-Sn-Pg angle increased by 1.9° (1.7°). At Week 12/16, almost all participants experienced ≥ 1 point improvements from baseline in MAS for chin projection (91.4%), iGAIS (100%), and pGAIS (99.1%). The mean (SD) Rasch-transformed score FACE-Q – Satisfaction with Chin was 66.6 (18.7) at Week 12/16. Thirty participants (24.8%) reported treatment-related adverse events; incidence was similar between treatment groups and the majority of events were mild to moderate in intensity and transient in nature. Conclusion: CPM-V and CPM-V+ were effective for chin augmentation in aesthetic clinical practice. No new safety concerns were identified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pavicic et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: