Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 560

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Restylane Versus Zyplast for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds

Narins, Rhoda S., Brandt, Fredric, Leyden, James, Lorenc, Z. Paul, Rubin, Mark, Smith, Stacy·2003·Dermatologic Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bovine collagen is extensively used for facial soft tissue augmentation but provides only temporary correction and can cause hypersensitivity reactions. Hyaluronic acid derivatives potentially offer improved longevity of correction and a reduced risk of immunogenicity and hypersensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid gel (Restylane; Q-Med, Uppsala, Sweden) with that of bovine collagen (Zyplast) for treatment of nasolabial folds. METHODS: One hundred thirty-eight patients with prominent nasolabial folds were randomized to treatment with hyaluronic acid gel and bovine collagen on contralateral sides of the face. Treatments were repeated at 2-week intervals, as required, to achieve "optimal cosmetic result" (baseline). Outcomes were evaluated by a blinded investigator at 2, 4, and 6 months after baseline. RESULTS: Less injection volume was required for "optimal cosmetic result" with hyaluronic acid gel than with bovine collagen, and patients and investigators judged hyaluronic acid gel to be more effective in maintaining cosmetic correction. The investigator-based Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments at 6 months after baseline indicated that hyaluronic acid gel was superior in 56.9% and 62.0% of patients, respectively, whereas bovine collagen was superior in 9.5% and 8.0% of patients, respectively. The frequency, intensity, and duration of local injection-site reactions were similar for the two products. CONCLUSION: Nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid provides a more durable aesthetic improvement than bovine collagen and is well tolerated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29150.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 560

Metadata

Authors
Narins, R. S., Brandt, F., Leyden, J., Lorenc, Z. P., Rubin, M., & Smith, S.
Venue
Dermatologic Surgery
Published
2003-06
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
588-595
ISSN
  • 1076-0512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4725
OpenAlex
W2121745542
Cited by
560
References
0
FWCI
26.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Restylane Versus Zyplast for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29150.x
The paper
Narins, R. S., Brandt, F., Leyden, J., Lorenc, Z. P., Rubin, M., & Smith, S. (2003). A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Restylane Versus Zyplast for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds. Dermatologic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29150.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.