Introduction: Skin quality is an important component of human attractiveness. To date, there are no standardized criteria for good skin quality. To establish a consensus for good skin quality parameters and measurement and treatment options, a virtual skin quality advisory board consisting of a global panel of highly experienced aesthetic dermatologists/aesthetic physicians was convened. Methods: A total of 10 dermatologists/aesthetic physicians served on the advisory board. A modified version of the Delphi method was used to arrive at consensus. Members accessed an online platform to review statements on skin quality criteria from their peers, including treatment and measurement options, and voted to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. Statements that did not have agreement were modified and the members voted again. Consensus was defined as: strong consensus = greater than 95% agreement; consensus = 75% to 95% agreement; majority consent = 50% to 75% agreement; no consensus = less than 50% agreement. Results: There was strong consensus that good skin quality is defined as healthy, youthful in appearance (appearing younger than a person’s chronological age), undamaged skin and that skin quality can be described across all ethnicities by four emergent perceptual categories (EPCs): skin tone evenness, skin surface evenness, skin firmness, and skin glow. The EPCs can be affected by multiple tissue layers (ie, skin surface quality can stem from and be impacted by deep structures or tissues). This means that topical approaches may not be sufficient. Instead, improving skin quality EPCs can require a multilayer treatment strategy. Conclusion: This global advisory board established strong consensus that skin quality can be described by four EPCs, which can help clinicians determine the appropriate treatment option(s) and the tissue or skin layer(s) to address. Skin quality is important to human health and wellbeing and patients’ perception for the need for aesthetic treatment.

Background: As the treatment indications for the Cohesive Polydensified Matrix^® hyaluronic acid (CPM-HA) portfolio continue to expand and diversify, injectors new to the range or those who are expanding the treatments they offer may be unsure of the optimal product and injection technique for specific facial areas. Each product in the CPM-HA portfolio has been intentionally designed to provide the best physical properties for a specific indication and target tissue. This document has been developed to provide a comprehensive, one-stop reference for clinicians using the portfolio. Methods: An international panel of experts in the field of aesthetic medicine convened to develop guidelines on effective and safe injection technique when performing treatments with the CPM-HA range of soft-tissue fillers. Results: Consensus members considered treatment indications in the upper, middle and lower face. Landmark deficiencies and anatomical considerations are described for each indication and consensus recommendations provided on the optimal product, injection depth and treatment technique. This is supplemented by the experts advice on avoidance of complications. Throughout, an evidence-based approach to selection of products and injection techniques is provided. The result is a fully tailored approach to a range of indications covering the full portfolio of CPM-HA products, including the newest addition for skin revitalization. Conclusion: The recommendations in this consensus document are provided to assist clinicians in the selection of CPM-HA products, administration techniques and depths of injection with the aim of providing seamless and natural treatment results, enhanced safety and patient satisfaction.

Purpose: The efficacy of microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V; Ultherapy^®) has been demonstrated in clinical studies and daily practice. However, data addressing skin physiology after MFU-V treatment are lacking. This observational evaluation was aimed to assess skin physiology before and after MFU-V treatment using noninvasive biophysical measurements. Patients and methods: Twenty-two female patients with moderate-to-severe skin sagging at the jawline and submental region on the Merz Aesthetics Scale obtained a single MFU-V treatment according to protocol. Skin function measurements focused on short-term effects up to 3 days and long-term effects up to 24 weeks after treatment. Skin temperature, transepidermal water loss, skin hydration, erythema, elasticity, and skin thickness and density were evaluated under standardized conditions. Pain was assessed using a validated numeric visual analog scale. Results: Skin temperature remained in a physiologic range and no significant increase was noted at day 3 after MFU-V treatment. Transepidermal water loss, hydration, and erythema values were fairly stable and showed no significant differences at short- and long-term measurements vs baseline. At week 4 after a single MFU-V treatment, gross and net elasticity values were significantly decreased (P=0.003 and P=0.0001, respectively), followed by significantly increased values at week 12 (P=0.015, P=0.046) and week 24 (P=0.001, P=0.049). Edema due to MFU-V treatment resolved without sequelae. For all patients, pain diminished shortly after treatment. No adverse events occurred during the 24-week follow-up period. Conclusions: MFU-V treatment is well tolerated and it does not alter the epidermal barrier function or physiology of skin. Significant increase in the elasticity of skin was observed at 12 and 24 weeks after a single treatment, which reflects improvement in dermal tissue function. These short- and long-term effects are congruous with the mode of action of MFU-V due to a proven intrinsic tissue remodeling process.

Skin changes associated with aging, such as loss of elasticity and turgor, can have a negative psychosocial impact. Current treatment options aimed at restoring elasticity are often ineffective or hampered by a poor risk/benefit ratio. Clinical observations and biophysical measurements were used to assess the effect of middermal placement of stabilized hyaluronic acid-based gel of nonanimal origin (NASHA, Restylane, Vital, Q-Med) on the appearance and elasticity of facial skin. In this pilot study, 19 female patients underwent a series of three treatment sessions, spaced 4 weeks apart, with NASHA injected into the lower cheeks. Elasticity, skin surface roughness, dermal thickness, and density were evaluated at each treatment session and at 4 and 12 weeks after the last treatment session. Patient satisfaction was assessed, and photographs were taken at each visit. During the course of the study, skin elasticity and surface roughness improved significantly. Patient feedback was extremely positive. Micropuncture placement of NASHA can exert a rejuvenating effect on facial skin.

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are popular for the treatment of signs of facial skin aging. Objective: The objective of this study was to confirm the performance and safety of a new cohesive polydensified matrix HA filler ([CPM^®-HA20G, Belotero Revive,^® lidocaine-free], Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany) for the treatment of early signs of facial skin aging by use of biophysical measurements as well as subject and investigator satisfaction. Methods: Twenty-five healthy female subjects with signs of facial skin aging were enrolled in this open-label, rater-blinded, observational post-market clinical follow-up study, and received 20 micropuncture treatments of 50 μL CPM^®-HA20G each into the lower cheek area at three injection visits 4 weeks apart. Objective biophysical assessments were conducted to demonstrate effects on viscoelastic properties of the skin, surface roughness, tone and radiance, and hydration, at baseline and at all follow-up visits up to 36 weeks. Results: CPM^®-HA20G significantly increased gross elasticity of the skin (at weeks 9 and 12), skin firmness (up to week 24), skin tone and radiance and skin hydration (all up to 36 weeks). Significant reduction of skin fatigue (up to 9 weeks), skin roughness (up to 28 weeks), and redness (up to 36 weeks) was also observed. Subjects and blinded investigator were highly satisfied with the treatment outcomes. The treating investigator reported a high level of satisfaction with the ease of injection and the clinical performance of the device. Moreover, data demonstrated a good safety profile of the device. Conclusion: CPM^®-HA20G is considered to be an effective and safe HA injectable for skin revitalization in patients suffering from signs of skin aging and loss of skin elasticity. It seems to be a perfect early intervention approach in patients that do not need volumizing treatment and a combination approach in older patients with more pronounced aging.