Two calcium hydroxylapatite-based fillers—Rennova Diamond Intense and Radiesse—produced comparable improvements in dermal thickness, skin elasticity, and patient satisfaction after a single facial rejuvenation treatment, according to a recent study.
Researchers conducted a prospective, single-center, unblinded comparative study evaluating two calcium hydroxylapatite-based dermal fillers—Rennova Diamond Intense and Radiesse. The study was led by Bruna S. F. Bravo of the Department of Dermatology, Bravo Private Clinic, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, and colleagues, and aimed to compare clinical performance, safety, and patient satisfaction between the novel Rennova Diamond Intense and the established Radiesse in facial rejuvenation.
Thirty patients (28 women, 2 men; mean age, 49 years) received a single treatment session, with Rennova injected into the right lower and medial posterior facial region and Radiesse into the left. A standardized subcutaneous linear retro-injection technique targeted the preauricular area, mandibular angle, and posterior cheek. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at multiple follow-up visits included dermal thickness (high-frequency ultrasonography), skin elasticity (retraction time in milliseconds), transepidermal water loss, the Subjective Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, the Physician Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and adverse events.
At day 60, Subjective Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale ratings showed exceptional improvement in 11% of patients, very improved in 15%, improved in 48%, and no change in 26%. By day 120, Subjective Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale ratings showed exceptional improvement in 8.7% of patients, very improved in 30%, improved in 39%, and no change in 22%. Physician Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores at day 120 showed 73% very improved, 20% improved, and 6.7% exceptional improvement.
Ultrasonography of the tragus region demonstrated an increase in dermal thickness from 1,415 µm to 1,627 µm on the Rennova side and from 1,488 µm to 1,575 µm on the Radiesse side by day 90. Skin elasticity improved, with retraction times decreasing from 231 ms to 164 ms for Rennova and from 212 ms to 154 ms for Radiesse. Transepidermal water loss declined from 7.7 g/m²/h to 6.4 g/m²/h with Rennova and from 5.4 g/m²/h to 6.0 g/m²/h with Radiesse.
Adverse events were mild and transient, resolving within 30 days; pain was reported by 80% of patients, swelling by 30%, and hardening by 37%. No severe complications occurred. The researchers concluded that both fillers produced comparable improvements in dermal thickness, elasticity, and barrier function with high patient and physician satisfaction, supporting Rennova Diamond Intense as an effective alternative to Radiesse.
Full disclosures can be found in the published study.
Source: Journal of Clinical Medicine
