# Comparative Physicochemical Characterization of Polylactic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers

## TL;DR

This study compares the physical and chemical properties of different polylactic acid-based dermal fillers to help clinicians choose the best products for patients.

## Contribution

A systematic comparison of physicochemical properties among various PLA-based dermal fillers.

## Key findings

- AestheFill and NeoFilera showed similar functional groups, size distribution, osmotic pressure, and viscosity.
- Sculptra had distinct particle morphology and viscosity due to its PLLA composition.
- Reconstitution times for Sculptra, NeoFilera, and Juvelook were significantly shorter than AestheFill.

## Abstract

Introduction: Polylactic acid can be classified into poly(L-lactic acid) (PLLA) and poly(D,L-lactic acid) (PDLLA) according to their stereoisomeric structures, and both are widely used as dermal fillers for soft tissue augmentation. Although the clinical efficacy of commercially available PLLA- and PDLLA-based fillers has been well established, variations in their physicochemical properties may lead to differences in handling characteristics and clinical performance. A systematic comparison of these properties among different PLA-based fillers remains limited. Materials and Methods: In this study, the physicochemical characteristics of three PDLLA-based fillers (AestheFill, NeoFilera, and Juvelook) and one PLLA-based filler (Sculptra) were evaluated. The analyses included functional group identification, particle morphology and size distribution observation, reconstitution time measurement, osmotic pressure determination, and viscosity assessment. Results: AestheFill and NeoFilera exhibited similar profiles in terms of functional groups, size distribution, osmotic pressure, and viscosity, while NeoFilera and Juvelook showed comparable particle morphologies. Sculptra displayed distinct particle morphology and viscosity, likely attributable to its PLLA composition, yet showed similarities with Juvelook in functional group identification and osmotic pressure. Additionally, the reconstitution times of Sculptra, NeoFilera, and Juvelook were significantly shorter than that of AestheFill. Conclusions: Although the direct correlation between physicochemical characteristics and clinical outcomes warrants further investigation, this comparative analysis provides clinicians with a clearer understanding of the material properties of PLA-based dermal fillers and may assist in the informed selection of appropriate products for individual patients.