Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2018

01-08-2018 | Original Article

Comparative Study of UMA Jeunesse Classic® and UMA Jeunesse Ultra®

Authors: Peeyush P. Sharma, Dave Krishan Sharma, Andrew Carr

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

The emergence of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers with lidocaine has transformed the minimally invasive treatment of wrinkles, lines and folds of the face. Patients can be treated quickly, painlessly and without the need for large doses of lidocaine. Therefore, it is important to scientifically evaluate the merits of lidocaine-containing products over those without.

Methods

The two products, with (UJU) and without lidocaine (UJ), were randomly injected into nasolabial folds of 75 healthy volunteers with varying skin types in a split face study, age ranging 26–60 years. Only 73 subjects completed the follow-up. There were 68 females and 5 males with medium-to-deep nasolabial folds. All subjects were randomly injected with the two products on one or the other side of the face. Patients were followed up for 9 months.

Results

Both products achieved significant improvement in the wrinkle severity score. Overall results were slightly better with UJU due to ease of injection, lack of pain and avoidance of topical or parenteral anaesthetic. In all other respects, differences in clinical data were not statistically significant. UJU® was preferred by patients and injectors due to less pain during and after injection as compared to UJ® (P < 0.0001). The overall rate of early and late complications with the two products was similar. Duration of maintenance of aesthetic effect between products also showed similarity. Optimum aesthetic effect was maintained in most cases for over 9 months with both products but patients in the 30–50-year age group did better. The patient acceptability rate was much higher with UJU.

Conclusion

Clinical data from this study suggest that performance and outcomes of treatment of medium-to-deep nasolabial folds with UJ and UJU are quite similar. However, treatment with UJU offers enhanced patient comfort and is preferred by patients and injectors.

Level of Evidence I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literature
1.
Royo de la Torre J, Moreno-Moraga J, Isarría MJ, Muñoz E, Cruz I, Pérez G, Cornejo P (2013) The evaluation of hyaluronic acid, with and without lidocaine, in the filling of nasolabial folds as measured by ultrastructural changes and pain management. J Drugs Dermatol 12(3):e46–52PubMed
2.
Prager W, Steinkraus V (2010) A prospective, rater-blind, randomized comparison of the effectiveness and tolerability of Belotero ® Basic versus Restylane ® for correction of nasolabial folds. Eur J Dermatol 20(6):748–752PubMed
3.
da Costa A, Biccigo DGZ, de Souza Weimann ET, Mercadante LM, Oliveira PRG, Prebianchi SB, Abdalla BMZ (2017) Durability of three different types of hyaluronic acid fillers in skin: are there differences among biphasic, monophasic monodensified, and monophasic polydensified products? Aesthet Surg J 37(5):573–581. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​asj/​sjw161 PubMedCrossRef
4.
World Health Organization (2001) World medical association declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 79(4):373–374
5.
6.
Day DJ, Littler CM, Swift RW, Gottlieb S (2004) The wrinkle severity rating scale: a validation study. Am J Clin Dermatol 5:49–52CrossRefPubMed
7.
Carruthers A, Carruthers J (2010) A validated facial grading scale: the future of facial ageing measurement tools? J Cosmet Laser Ther 12:235–241CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sharma P, Sharma S (2011) Comparative study of a new dermal filler Uma Jeunesse® and Juvéderm®. J Cosmet Dermatol 10(2):118–125CrossRefPubMed
9.
Levy PM, De Boulle K, Raspaldo H (2009) A split-face comparison of a new hyaluronic acid facial filler containing pre-incorporated lidocaine versus a standard hyaluronic acid facial filler in the treatment of naso-labial folds. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:169–173CrossRefPubMed
10.
Weinkle SH, Bank DE, Boyd CM et al (2009) A multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled study of the safety and effectiveness of Juve´derm injectable gel with and without lidocaine. J Cosmet Dermatol 8(3):205–210CrossRefPubMed
11.
Alam M, Dover JS (2007) Management of complications and sequelae with temporary injectable fillers. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(6 Suppl):98S–105SCrossRefPubMed
12.
Pinsky MA, Thomas JA, Murphy DK, Walker PS (2008) Juvederm injectable gel: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of safety and effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J 28(5):596–597CrossRef
13.
Vedamurthy M (2008) IADVL Dermatosurgery task Force. Standard guidelines for the use of dermal fillers. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 74:S23–S27CrossRefPubMed
14.
Duranti F, Salti G, Bovani B, Calandra M, Rosati ML (1998) Injectable hyaluronic acid gel for soft tissue augmentation. A clinical and histological study. Dermatol Surg 24:1317–1325PubMed
15.
Funt David, Pavicic Tatjana (2013) Dermal fillers in aesthetics: an overview of adverse events and treatment approaches. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 6:295–316PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Christensen LH (2009) Host tissue interaction, fate, and risks of degradable and nondegradable gel fillers. Dermatol Surg 35(Suppl 2):1612–1619CrossRefPubMed
17.
Monheit GD, Rohrich RJ (2009) The nature of long-term fillers and the risk of complications. Dermatol Surg 35(Suppl 2):1598–1604CrossRefPubMed
18.
Arsiwala SZ (2010) Safety and persistence of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid fillers for nasolabial folds correction in 30 indian patients. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 3(3):156–161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Comparative Study of UMA Jeunesse Classic® and UMA Jeunesse Ultra®
Authors
Peeyush P. Sharma
Dave Krishan Sharma
Andrew Carr
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1144-8

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

The M–Y Axilloplasty After Massive Weight Loss: Analysis of 159 Consecutive Patients

Original Article

Evaluation of Safe Systemic Immunosuppression Created with Dexamethasone in Prevention of Capsular Contracture: A Glance to Distinct Perspectives with Toll-Like Receptors

Letter to the Editor

Reply to the Editor Regarding: Miranda RN, Clemens MW Letter to the Editor 2018 Apr 6 in Relation to: Fleming D, Stone J, Tansley P. Spontaneous Regression and Resolution of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Implications for Research, Diagnosis and Clinical Management. Aesth Plast Surg, 2018

Original Article

Effectiveness and Safety of an Overnight Patch Containing Allium cepa Extract and Allantoin for Post-Dermatologic Surgery Scars

Original Article

The Fate of Fogli’s Lore’s Fascial Platysma Fixation Optimalising the Results of Fogli’s Neck Lift Procedure

Original Article

Body Image, Personality Traits, and Quality of Life in Botulinum Toxin A and Dermal Filler Patients