Open access · US-GOV via ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical trial

A Prospective, Triple Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGE® M LIDOCAINE Versus STYLAGE® M in Filling Nasolabial Folds

Authors not listed

Laboratoires Vivacy · 2021

Dysbiosis Human Randomized controlled trial

Abstract

This clinical investigation is designed to compare the STYLAGE® M Lidocaïne to STYLAGE® M in terms of correction of nasolabial folds severity and pain felt by the subject, and to assess and compare the safety and effectiveness of both products. Subjects with moderate to severe nasolabial folds will receive both treatments in a split-face design at D0, and a touch-up will be done 14 days after if necessary. The subjects will be followed-up over a 12-month period after initial injection.

◌ CITATION ONLY
Full text is not openly licensed for redistribution here. Read it at the source:

Read at source →

Provenance

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov
Canonical: link ↗
Fetched: 2026-10-21 MST

Cite this

APA

Anonymous. (2021). A Prospective, Triple Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGE® M LIDOCAINE Versus STYLAGE® M in Filling Nasolabial Folds. <em>Laboratoires Vivacy</em>. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05087732

Vancouver

Anonymous. A Prospective, Triple Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGE® M LIDOCAINE Versus STYLAGE® M in Filling Nasolabial Folds. Laboratoires Vivacy. 2021.

BibTeX

@misc{anon2021AProsp, title = {A Prospective, Triple Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study of the Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGE® M LIDOCAINE Versus STYLAGE® M in Filling Nasolabial Folds}, author = {Anonymous}, journal = {Laboratoires Vivacy}, year = {2021}, }