How long does filler last, and how is it different from Botox?

Evidence and details

What the approval record says

Hyaluronic acid filler is approved as a Class 4 medical device, and the records are in the medical device database (의료기기안심책방) of Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). The lists for the three item classifications that filler belongs to (B04230.01 · B04230.02 · the old classification number B04230) held 1,292 records when we collected them on September 27 to 28, 2026. Of these, 182 records had normal status and were not for export. Of those, 115 listed hyaluronic acid in their intended use (111 for the face, 4 for penile enlargement).

Area named in the intended use of the 111 face products	Number of products
“Facial wrinkles” with no area named	55
Nasolabial folds only	28
Nasolabial folds, products mixed with polynucleotide	2
Wrinkles and volume restoration, no area named	8
Midface volume	4
Lips (together with facial wrinkles, or lips only)	5
Fine wrinkles · fine wrinkles of the cheeks	5
Fine lines at the outer corners of the eyes, products mixed with polynucleotide	2
Chin volume	1
Fine lines around the lips	1
Forehead	0
Nose (excluding nasolabial folds)	0
Checked	2026-09-28

None of the 111 hyaluronic acid fillers for the face sold in Korea lists the forehead or the nose in its intended use. The words for between the eyebrows (미간), temples (관자), under the eyes (눈밑) and cheekbones (광대) do not appear in the intended use of any of the 111 either. For 55 products the intended use says only “facial wrinkles” with no area, so it neither names nor excludes the forehead or nose. Every hyaluronic acid record that names the forehead or nose has “for export only” in its remarks.

The intended use of all 111 is a temporary improvement or restoration, and no hyaluronic acid intended use says “permanent.” The ages stated are “22 years or older” for 4 nasolabial fold products and “21 years or older” for 1 lip product; the rest say “adults.”

Below is the intended use, as written in the record, for seven products whose intended uses differ in type.

Product (company)	Approval no. (approval date)	Intended use (record text)	Checked
Neuramis Deep (Medytox)	제허13-871호 (2013-05-16)	“Temporary improvement of facial wrinkles in adults through physical restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid under the skin”	2026-09-28
Neuramis lidocaine and others, NVL model (Medytox)	제허14-2923호 (2014-12-09)	“Used for the temporary improvement of facial wrinkles in adults through physical restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid containing lidocaine under the skin, and for the temporary improvement of moderate or greater midface volume loss in adults”	2026-09-28
YVOIRE classic s and others (주식회사 리브사이언스)	제허11-1025호 (2011-09-19)	“Temporary wrinkle improvement and volume restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid into the skin layers of the face of adults”	2026-09-28
Juvederm VOLUMA with Lidocaine (AbbVie Korea)	수허11-1452호 (2011-12-13)	“Used to temporarily restore facial volume in adults by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel containing 0.3% lidocaine hydrochloride”	2026-09-28
Juvederm VOLUX (AbbVie Korea)	수허20-90호 (2020-04-28)	“Used to temporarily improve the volume of the chin in the face of adults through physical restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel containing 0.3% lidocaine hydrochloride into the subcutaneous and supraperiosteal layers.”	2026-09-28
Restylane LYFT Lidocaine 1.0mL (Galderma Korea)	수허10-913호 (2010-09-07)	“Used for the temporary improvement of facial wrinkles and the restoration of volume in adults through physical restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid containing lidocaine under the skin”	2026-09-28
TEOSYAL RHA4 (Jetema Yongin plant, (주)제테마용인공장 · 이머고코리아(유))	수허19-49호 · 수허26-91호 (2019-02-21 · 2026-04-23)	“Used to temporarily improve moderate to severe nasolabial folds in adults aged 22 years or older through physical restoration by injecting cross-linked hyaluronic acid containing lidocaine from the deep dermis to the upper layer of the subcutaneous tissue”	2026-09-28

Products that contain lidocaine (a local anesthetic) are marked “drug and medical device combination product” in the remarks field.

Among products with a defined area, the VOLUX and Neuramis NVL model documents say there are no data for other areas or groups. The Juvederm VOLUX precautions for use say, “There are no clinical data on the effectiveness and tolerance of injection into areas other than the chin.” The Neuramis NVL model document says that, apart from midface volume restoration, “safety and effectiveness for other groups have not been confirmed.” Under the VOLUX contraindications, the product is not injected around the eyes (eyelids, under the eyes, wrinkles at the corners of the eyes), between the eyebrows or into the lips.

The Neuramis, VOLBELLA and Restylane Kysse documents say that injection into a blood vessel can cause serious side effects such as blindness, and so “recommend against use around the eyes, such as between the eyebrows.” The YVOIRE Y-Solution 360 document says to avoid use in the same areas.

The VOLUX document says not to exceed 2 mL per treatment area in 1 session, and says there are no safety data for injecting more than 20 mL of the company’s filler each year, based on a body weight of 60 kg. The VOLBELLA document says the same about 20 mL. These figures are limits written in the documents, not the right amount for any individual.

All six filler approval documents read for this article (VOLUX, Neuramis, VOLBELLA, VOLIFT, Restylane Kysse, YVOIRE Y-Solution 360) list minors as a contraindication or prohibit use in minors. For pregnancy and breastfeeding, they list a contraindication, say not to use the product, or, like Restylane Kysse, say that safety has not been established.

The VOLBELLA and YVOIRE Y-Solution 360 documents say not to use the product in people who are hypersensitive to lidocaine or amide local anesthetics. The VOLBELLA document says that people taking drugs that lengthen clotting time, such as anticoagulants, should be warned that the risk of bleeding and hematoma during the procedure can increase.

What the studies reported

Most trials that compared hyaluronic acid filler with another product or with no treatment were manufacturer trials of a single product, or trials whose funding we could not confirm. We did not find a trial, independent of manufacturers, that compared products with each other. On September 15 and 27, 2026, we searched PubMed for hyaluronic acid filler together with duration of effect, blindness and necrosis, hyaluronidase, forehead and nose, and Korean.

Two analyses pooled several studies to look at differences by product type. An analysis that pooled 22 nasolabial fold trials (1,848 people) found that monophasic fillers gave slightly better wrinkle scores and less pain than biphasic fillers, with no difference in other side effects. The researcher who led this analysis works for a contract research organization (a company that runs clinical trials for others). Another analysis that pooled 11 trials (935 people) also reported that monophasic fillers were ahead by a small margin on wrinkle scores, with no difference in side effects.

A 2024 analysis that pooled nasolabial fold studies comparing filler with and without lidocaine found that the lidocaine filler hurt less, with no difference in wrinkle scores or side effects. The research team declared no conflicts of interest.

Four nasolabial fold trials compared a Korean product with an existing product, one on each half of the face. All four were designed to check that the new product was not worse than the existing one, none compared it with an untreated side, and in each the new product’s company paid for the study or the researchers worked for that company.

Study	Compared with	Reported result	Funding and interests
Two Korean nasolabial fold trials (58 people · 57 people)	YVOIRE Classic s vs Restylane, YVOIRE Volume s vs Perlane	Wrinkle score at 26 weeks 2.56 vs 2.56, 2.89 vs 2.91	All researchers worked for LG Chem
Korean 52-week nasolabial fold trial	DIVAVIVA medium vs Restylane Perlane Lidocaine	Change in wrinkle score at 24 weeks -0.61 vs -0.59	Funded by Yuyoung Pharmaceutical
Korean 48-week nasolabial fold trial	New product with lidocaine vs existing product (product names not in the paper’s summary)	Wrinkle score at 24 weeks 2.02 vs 2.27; no difference at 48 weeks in the share of people who improved by 1 point or more	Funded by Exocobio
Trial in 100 Korean people	SkinPlus-HYAL Implant Lidocaine vs RESTYLANE Lidocaine	Wrinkle score at 24 weeks 1.85 vs 1.84; effect reported to last through 48 weeks. Injection-site adverse reactions 92.0% vs 82.0%	Funded by Bioplus · J1 Global

How long the effect lasts and how long filler stays in the body

The approval documents do not state how many months the effect lasts. The VOLUX and Restylane Kysse documents say, “Safety and effectiveness of long-term use beyond the period shown in clinical studies have not been confirmed.” The Neuramis document says the same and adds, “This product is not a permanent implant.” The VOLBELLA document also states that the product is not a permanent implant and is a biodegradable material.

The clinical trial summaries in the approval documents also report short-term results. In the VOLUX trial, 90 of 120 people were treated first and 30 were treated 3 months later for comparison, and the main outcome was the difference in facial angle at 3 months. The trial followed people for up to 24 months, but those results are not in the summary; 91.7% of participants were women and 12.5% were Asian. The Neuramis NVL trial put the test product on one side of the face and a control product on the other in 88 people, reported a midface improvement rate of 96.39% vs 96.39% at 24 weeks, and had visits through 48 weeks. The document does not name the control product.

In published papers, the duration of effect differed by area and product. A 138-person nasolabial fold trial compared results up to 6 months. A 292-person nasolabial fold trial reported that 75% and 81% of nasolabial folds treated with the two products kept their correction for more than 9 months, but these figures came from the 227 people who returned after the trial ended.

In a trial of one product injected into the cheeks (Juvéderm Voluma), nearly half of people kept their correction after 24 months. A subregion analysis of the same trial, with researchers from Allergan, found that correction lasted 24 months in the front inner cheek, 19 months in the cheekbone area and 15 months below the cheekbone. The Korean product nasolabial fold trials followed people for 48 to 52 weeks at the longest.

A 2026 review that pooled 24 studies with more than 12 months of follow-up (1,410 people) reported that 50 to 86% of filler volume, measured with three-dimensional imaging, remained at 24 months. The figure is the volume remaining on imaging, not a measure of visible effect. The Brazilian government funded this review.

In a study in which an imaging center reviewed MRI scans of 33 people who had filler in the midface, filler was visible in all 33. Of them, 21 had not had filler for 2 to 5 years and 12 for more than 5 years. Of the 33, 9 had the MRI because of swelling, and the research team named as a limitation that patients did not remember well, or had not recorded, where and how much filler they had received.

The Restylane Kysse precautions for use also say that, in rare cases, product residue was found in tissue after the clinical effect had returned to the pre-treatment state. We did not find a study on whether remaining filler is harmful to the body.

How filler and botulinum toxin differ

Botulinum toxin is approved as a drug in the MFDS drug database (Nedrug, 의약품안전나라), and all 60 botulinum toxin products we checked on September 22, 2026 were prescription drugs. Hyaluronic acid filler is a Class 4 medical device, as the records above show.

A 2018 review paper (one with a published correction notice) explained that filler fills soft tissue that has shrunk or scars that have sunk in, and that the toxin corrects wrinkles caused by muscles and changes the shape of the face. A 2008 consensus statement said that in the upper face the toxin is the core of treatment and filler adds to the result, while in the midface, where volume must be filled, filler is the core. The PubMed record does not list funding for this consensus statement.

Trials that used both together were small. A trial of the area around the mouth split 90 women aged 35 to 55 into groups of 30 for filler only, toxin only, or both. The trial reported that the group that had both improved more on most measures and at most time points, and the PubMed record does not name who funded it. In a forehead and frown-line (glabellar line) trial in 20 people that put toxin only on one side of the face and toxin with filler on the other, both sides improved through 12 weeks, and at 24 weeks the frown lines on the combined side had decreased more.

A 2016 international consensus statement called using the two together “standard of care,” and Allergan, which makes Botox and Juvederm fillers, supported the consensus meeting and the manuscript writing. We did not find a trial that directly compared filler and toxin, one each, in the same area. The approval record and studies for botulinum toxin for frown lines are in the botulinum toxin for frown lines article.

What side effects have been reported

The Juvederm VOLUX precautions for use say that after injection, inflammatory reactions such as redness and swelling can occur along with itching, tenderness or abnormal sensations, and that these reactions can last for a week. In the VOLUX trial, injection-site reactions lasted a week or less.

In the Neuramis NVL trial, 45 of 88 people (51.14%) had application-site reactions such as bruising, swelling, lumps or pain. Most were barely noticeable or mildly uncomfortable, and the average duration was within 2 weeks. There were no serious adverse events. The Neuramis document’s list of post-marketing reports also includes edema, injection-site ecchymosis (bruising), injection-site lumps (bumpiness) and hypersensitivity reactions.

Under the Neuramis precautions for use, patients must tell the treating doctor if inflammatory reactions continue for more than 1 week or other side effects appear, and the treating doctor must treat them. The VOLBELLA document gives the same instruction.

The VOLUX adverse reactions section says that “rare but serious adverse reactions” have been reported. The listed reactions are temporary or permanent vision impairment and blindness, cerebral ischemia or cerebral hemorrhage leading to stroke, and skin necrosis, related to injecting filler into facial blood vessels or to compressing tissue. If vision changes, signs of stroke, pale skin or unusual pain appear during or right after the procedure, the injector stops injecting immediately. The Neuramis document says that damage to a blood vessel can cause local ischemia (loss of blood supply) or necrosis in that area or in the area that the vessel supplies with blood.

The VOLBELLA document says that a patient with these symptoms must receive prompt treatment. If you cannot see well or notice anything unusual in your vision after the procedure, contact the clinic that treated you as soon as possible for treatment and evaluation.

We did not find a rate of blindness per number of procedures. The largest data set with a denominator is a study in which a Japanese cosmetic clinic chain reviewed its own records. From October 2020 to April 2024, among 209,083 patients and 290,307 injection sites, the study counted 12 serious complications (2 infections and 10 vascular occlusions) and reported a rate of 0.0041%; 8 of the 10 vascular occlusions were in the forehead.

A 2026 follow-up paper by the same team restated the same 12 cases as 12 out of 299,413 procedures from October 2020 to December 2024. The two papers use different denominators: injection sites and number of procedures. According to the follow-up paper, the chain (about 100 to 110 clinics) has used a single product, YVOIRE by LG Chem of Korea, since 2021, and the research team stated that the data come from one clinic group and may be biased. The original paper’s summary does not mention cases of blindness. The original paper stated no conflicts of interest and no funding, and the follow-up paper had no external funding.

A review that searched papers from September 2018 to March 2023 and gathered case reports found 365 cases of partial or complete vision loss after filler. The injection sites were, in order, the nose at 40.6%, the forehead at 27.7% and between the eyebrows at 19.0%, and 79.6% of the fillers were hyaluronic acid. Of the 318 cases with a recorded vision outcome, 6.0% recovered completely, 25.8% improved partly and 68.2% did not recover. Of the 365 cases, 93 (25.5%) were reported from Korea. The review received no funding, and several of the researchers disclosed relationships with filler companies, such as advisory roles.

A 2020 review that gathered 44 cases of vision loss after hyaluronic acid filler found that Korea had the most reports, and none of the 44 occurred in the lower face, such as the chin, jawline or lips. The review says that as little as 0.2 ml can cause permanent complete blindness. The number of reports is not divided by the number of procedures.

In a review that gathered 192 case reports of necrosis and impending necrosis after filler, injections into the nasolabial folds were the most common at 32.4%, and 71.9% involved hyaluronic acid. Case reports describe what happened to one person or a few people, so they do not show how often it happens.

A study that analyzed 27 Korean civil court rulings on filler from 2007 to 2023 found that, counting by the first-instance ruling, the nose was the most common area at 15 cases, and the complications were skin necrosis in 11 cases and blindness in 8. In most cases, the court found a breach of the duty to explain. Because these cases went to court, they do not show how often it happens.

What has been reported about lumps and delayed inflammation

Under the Neuramis precautions for use, injecting too much or too shallowly can cause temporary lumps or a bluish tint to the skin.

A 2020 review that pooled studies of delayed inflammatory reactions found a rate of 1.1% in 1 year in studies that followed people forward in time, and 0.06% in 1 year for reactions that could be regarded as delayed hypersensitivity. A study that reviewed the records of 4,500 people treated with Juvéderm Voluma at two clinics (funded by Allergan) reported that late adverse events occurred in 0.98% of people, and that all were temporary and resolved without problems.

A 2024 consensus statement by four experts who advise the filler company Teoxane recommends hyaluronidase for non-inflammatory reactions without active infection, and does not recommend it as first-line treatment for infection. Lumps that form in the lips and ways to dissolve them are covered in the lip filler article (in Korean).

Whether a dissolving injection can reverse filler

On September 27, 2026, we checked 26 products whose main ingredient is hyaluronidase in the MFDS drug database (24 finished products with normal status, 1 raw material, 1 withdrawn; all prescription drugs). Filler is not in the indications of the 26 approved hyaluronidase products. The indications of all 25 finished products are the same two. One is helping injections or local anesthetics spread (“increased penetration in subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, local anesthetics and subcutaneous infusion”). The other is helping the body absorb fluid and blood pooled in tissue (“promotion of reabsorption of excess fluid and blood in tissue”). The word “filler” does not appear anywhere on the 26 detail pages.

Under the precautions for use of 하이알라제주 (Huons), the drug is not given to patients with a history of shock, to patients hypersensitive to this drug or to bovine protein, or in or around areas with infection or cancer. Severe allergic reactions with shock can rarely occur, and anaphylactic reactions are among the serious adverse events collected after marketing in Korea. Because allergic reactions can occur with even a very small amount, the label advises asking the patient thoroughly and doing a skin test beforehand, and says not to drink alcohol during or right after administration.

Among the filler approval documents read for this article, hyaluronidase does not appear in the full precautions for use of VOLUX or Neuramis. The Restylane Kysse document says to consider removing the product, for example by enzymatic breakdown, if inflammation continues or recurs, and says that the use of hyaluronidase has been described in medical publications.

A 2024 review of trials that used hyaluronidase to dissolve filler (searched through May 2022) found 5 trials with 53 people, all done in the United States. All of them dissolved uncomplicated filler lumps placed in the skin of the arm or back. The research team stated that there were no trials of dissolving filler injected into the face or of treating complications on the face.

A 2026 analysis that pooled 21 case studies (231 people) using hyaluronidase for vascular complications reported that 78.4% of skin necrosis and 45.2% of vision impairment resolved, and that outcomes were better when treatment came within 6 hours. The analysis gathered treated cases and did not compare them with people who were not treated.

In the review of 365 cases of vision loss, hyaluronidase was used at or near the injection site in 70.1%, but no treatment was clearly linked to improved vision. Of 38 cases in which hyaluronidase was injected behind the eyeball, vision improved in 2.

What the documents say to be careful about after treatment

The table below shows instructions in approval documents submitted by the manufacturers, not results of comparison trials in people. Instructions can differ by product and procedure. Check the actual instructions with the medical staff who treated you.

Product	What the approval document says	Checked
Juvederm VOLUX	Recommends no makeup for 12 hours after the procedure. Recommends avoiding prolonged exposure to sunlight, UV light and temperatures of 0°C or below, and staying out of saunas and steam rooms for 2 weeks. Recommends not applying pressure to or massaging the treated area for a few days after the procedure	2026-09-28
Neuramis lidocaine line	Prohibits aspirin and excessive vitamin intake before the procedure. Not wearing makeup for 24 hours after the procedure is advisable. Avoid prolonged sunlight, UV light and extreme cold for 2 weeks, and no sauna	2026-09-28
Juvederm VOLBELLA · VOLIFT with Lidocaine	Recommends no makeup for 12 hours after the procedure. Recommends staying out of saunas and steam rooms for 2 weeks. The treated area is massaged after injection (directions for the injector)	2026-09-22

The time to avoid makeup differs between documents: 12 hours or 24 hours. Massage also differs. VOLUX recommends against it for a few days, while the VOLBELLA and VOLIFT directions for use say the injector massages the area after injection.

The interval before injecting again also differs by document. The VOLBELLA and VOLIFT directions for use recommend waiting until side effects have resolved before re-treatment (at least 2 weeks apart). The Restylane Kysse and YVOIRE Y-Solution 360 directions for use give 4 weeks as the recommended interval between the initial treatment and an additional treatment. In the Neuramis NVL trial, a touch-up was done after 4 weeks when the doctor judged it necessary.

Rules for daily life after filler and botulinum toxin, and the evidence behind them, are in the Precautions after filler and botulinum toxin article (in Korean).

We have not published prices yet

We publish a price range only after we have collected at least 3 publicly posted prices under the same conditions. For filler the count is still 0. When you look at quotes, check that the product name, the amount and the number of sessions are the same; only then are you comparing the same conditions.

What we have not confirmed yet

Related pages

• Lip filler (in Korean)
• Botulinum toxin for frown lines
• Precautions after filler and botulinum toxin (in Korean)
• Juvelook Skin and Juvelook Volume (in Korean)
• Rejuran
• Guide to types of skin procedures (in Korean)

---

Sources

• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). Search lists for item classifications B04230.01 · B04230.02 · B04230 (1,292 records) and the intended use, remarks and status in each record’s details. Korean originals quoted in the text: “안면부 주름” (“facial wrinkles”), “수출용에 한함” (“for export only”), “영구” (“permanent”), “22세 이상”, “만 21세 이상”, “성인” (“adults”), “의약품·의료기기 복합·조합품목” (“drug and medical device combination product”). Checked 2026-09-28
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). AbbVie Korea (한국애브비(주)) 수허20-90호 Juvederm VOLUX. Approval record and attached document (사용시주의사항 [precautions for use]). Korean originals quoted in the text: “턱을 제외한 다른 부위에 주입하는 것의 유효성과 내성(tolerance)에 대한 임상자료는 없다”, “임상연구를 통하여 밝혀진 기간 이외의 장기간 사용에 대한 안전성 및 유효성은 확인되지 않았다”, “드물지만 심각한 이상반응”. Checked 2026-09-28
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). Medytox ((주)메디톡스) 제허14-2923호 Neuramis light lidocaine · Neuramis lidocaine and others. Approval record and attached document (사용 시 주의사항 [precautions for use]). Korean originals quoted in the text: “그 외 대상에 대한 안전성·유효성은 확인되지 않았다”, “본 제품은 영구적 이식제품이 아니다”. Checked 2026-09-28
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). Medytox ((주)메디톡스) 제허13-871호 Neuramis Deep, 주식회사 리브사이언스 제허11-1025호 YVOIRE classic s and others, AbbVie Korea (한국애브비(주)) 수허11-1452호 Juvederm VOLUMA with Lidocaine, Galderma Korea (갈더마코리아(주)) 수허10-913호 Restylane LYFT Lidocaine 1.0mL, (주)제테마용인공장 수허19-49호 · 이머고코리아(유) 수허26-91호 TEOSYAL RHA4. Intended use and remarks in the approval records. Korean originals of the intended uses in the table, in table order: “가교 히알루론산을 피하에 주입하여 물리적 수복을 통해 성인의 안면부 주름을 일시적으로 개선” · “리도카인을 포함한 가교 히알루론산을 피하에 주입하여 물리적 수복을 통해 성인의 안면부 주름을 일시적으로 개선 및 성인에서 중등증 이상의 안면중앙부의 볼륨감소를 일시적으로 개선하기 위해 사용” · “가교 히알루론산을 성인의 얼굴 부위 피부층에 주입하여 일시적인 주름개선 및 볼륨회복” · “리도카인 염산염 0.3%가 포함된 가교 히알루론산겔을 주입하여 성인의 안면부 볼륨을 일시적으로 회복하기 위해 사용” · “리도카인 염산염 0.3%가 포함된 가교히알루론산겔을 피하(subcutaneous) 및 상위골막(supraperiosteal)에 주입하여 물리적인 수복을 통해 일시적으로 성인의 안면부 턱의 볼륨을 개선시키는데 사용한다.” · “리도카인이 포함된 가교 히알루론산을 피하에 주입하여 물리적인 수복을 통해 성인의 안면부 주름의 일시적인 개선 및 볼륨 회복을 위해 사용” · “리도카인이 포함된 가교 히알루론산을 진피 심층부에서 피하 조직 표층부 내에 주입하여 물리적 수복을 통해 22세 이상 성인의 중간(moderate)에서 깊은(severe) 코입술 주름(nasolabial fold)을 일시적으로 개선하기 위해 사용”. Checked 2026-09-28
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). AbbVie Korea (한국애브비(주)) 수허13-450호 Juvederm VOLBELLA with Lidocaine · 수허13-3071호 Juvederm VOLIFT with Lidocaine, Galderma Korea (갈더마코리아(주)) 수허21-188호 Restylane Kysse, LG Chem Iksan plant ((주)엘지화학익산공장) 제허26-49호 YVOIRE Y-Solution 360. Attached documents (사용방법 [directions for use] · 사용시주의사항 [precautions for use]). Korean original quoted in the text (Neuramis, VOLBELLA and Restylane Kysse documents): “미간 등 눈 주변 사용금지를 권장”. Checked 2026-09-22
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS drug database (Nedrug, 의약품안전나라). Indications (효능효과) in the details of the 26 products whose main ingredient is hyaluronidase, and precautions for use (사용상의 주의사항) of 하이알라제주 (Huons, (주)휴온스; item code 200704419). Korean originals quoted in the text: “피하주사나 근육주사, 국소마취제 및 피하주입 시 침투력 증가”, “조직 내에 과다하게 존재하는 체액 및 혈액의 재흡수 촉진”, “필러” (“filler”). Checked 2026-09-27
• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS drug database (Nedrug, 의약품안전나라). Prescription drug classification of the 60 products whose main ingredient is botulinum toxin. Checked 2026-09-22
• Huang Y, Zhang Y, Fei X, et al. Monophasic and Biphasic Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Esthetic Correction of Nasolabial Folds: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(3):1407-1422. PMID 35066619 · abstract only · first author works for a contract research organization · the analysis of 22 nasolabial fold trials in the text
• Ghaddaf AA, Aljefri YE, Alharbi FA, et al. Monophasic versus biphasic hyaluronic acid filler for correcting nasolabial folds: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(2):627-635. PMID 34817919 · abstract only · no conflict of interest statement in the PubMed record · the 11-trial analysis in the text
• Liu H, Shang G, Zhu T, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers With or Without Lidocaine in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(21):4466-4484. PMID 39014236 · abstract only · no conflicts of interest · the 2024 lidocaine analysis in the text
• Yang SD, Shin S, Lee J. Two Randomized Controlled Trials of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(7):e2975. PMID 32802667 · abstract only · all authors work for LG Chem · the two Korean nasolabial fold trials in the text
• Cheon HI, Kim JH, Kim BJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a new hyaluronic acid filler for nasolabial folds: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, evaluator/subject-blind, split-face study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20(5):1467-1473. PMID 33085170 · abstract only · funded by Yuyoung Pharmaceutical · the Korean 52-week nasolabial fold trial in the text
• Cho JY, Kim SH, Cho H, et al. Noninferiority Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a New Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Filler Containing Lidocaine With an Existing HA Filler for the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(7):e70309. PMID 40620129 · abstract only · funded by Exocobio · the Korean 48-week nasolabial fold trial in the text
• Lee SH, Park E, Won CH. Safety and Effectiveness of a Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Filler in Korean Patients for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: A Randomized, Patient- and Evaluator-Blinded, Paired Study. Aesthet Surg J. 2026;46(5):569-575. PMID 41507069 · abstract only · funded by Bioplus · J1 Global · the trial in 100 Korean people in the text
• Narins RS, Brandt F, Leyden J, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Restylane versus Zyplast for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29(6):588-95. PMID 12786700 · abstract only · no funder named in the PubMed record · the 138-person nasolabial fold trial in the text
• Pinsky MA, Thomas JA, Murphy DK, et al. Juvéderm injectable gel: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of safety and effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28(1):17-23. PMID 19083502 · abstract only · no conflict of interest statement in the PubMed record · the 292-person nasolabial fold trial in the text
• Jones D, Murphy DK. Volumizing hyaluronic acid filler for midface volume deficit: 2-year results from a pivotal single-blind randomized controlled study. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(11):1602-12. PMID 24093664 · abstract only · author affiliations not confirmed in this record · the cheek trial in the text
• Glaser DA, Kenkel JM, Paradkar-Mitragotri D, et al. Duration of effect by injection volume and facial subregion for a volumizing hyaluronic acid filler in treating midface volume deficit. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(8):942-9. PMID 26218727 · abstract only · authors include Allergan employees · the subregion analysis of the cheek trial in the text
• de Castro Costa M, Andrade CA, Dantas RVF, et al. Clinical Durability of Hyaluronic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers for Facial Application: A Systematic Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50(5):1971-1993. PMID 41261256 · abstract only · funded by the Brazilian government (CAPES) · the 2026 review in the text
• Master M, Azizeddin A, Master V. Hyaluronic Acid Filler Longevity in the Mid-face: A Review of 33 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(7):e5934. PMID 39015357 · full text checked · no conflicts of interest · the 33-person MRI study in the text
• Alam M, Tung R. Injection technique in neurotoxins and fillers: Indications, products, and outcomes. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(3):423-435. PMID 30119866 · abstract only · correction notice published · the 2018 review paper in the text
• Carruthers JDA, Glogau RG, Blitzer A, et al. Advances in facial rejuvenation: botulinum toxin type a, hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, and combination therapies–consensus recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(5 Suppl):5S-30S. PMID 18449026 · abstract only · no funding statement in the PubMed record · the 2008 consensus statement in the text
• Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Monheit GD, et al. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of the safety and effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/ml smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36 Suppl 4:2121-34. PMID 21134044 · abstract only · the PubMed record does not name the funder · the 90-person trial of the area around the mouth in the text
• Dubina M, Tung R, Bolotin D, et al. Treatment of forehead/glabellar rhytide complex with combination botulinum toxin a and hyaluronic acid versus botulinum toxin A injection alone: a split-face, rater-blinded, randomized control trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2013;12(4):261-6. PMID 24305424 · abstract only · the 20-person forehead and frown-line trial in the text
• Sundaram H, Liew S, Signorini M, et al. Global Aesthetics Consensus: Hyaluronic Acid Fillers and Botulinum Toxin Type A-Recommendations for Combined Treatment and Optimizing Outcomes in Diverse Patient Populations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(5):1410-1423. PMID 27119917 · full text checked · consensus meeting and manuscript writing supported by Allergan · the 2016 international consensus statement in the text
• Tamura T, Tamura T, Okumura K, et al. Serious Complications of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers-A Retrospective Study of 290,307 Cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2025;94(6):630-633. PMID 40358958 · abstract only · states no conflicts of interest and no funding · the Japanese chain study in the text
• Tamura T, Tamura T, Okumura K, et al. From Contouring to Rejuvenation: A Nationwide Big-Data Analysis of Hyaluronic Acid Injection Trends in Japan. J Clin Med. 2026;15(2):893. PMID 41598830 · full text checked · no external funding · the follow-up paper on the Japanese chain in the text
• Doyon VC, Liu C, Fitzgerald R, et al. Update on Blindness From Filler: Review of Prognostic Factors, Management Approaches, and a Century of Published Cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44(10):1091-1104. PMID 38630871 · abstract only; counts by country and the figures on injection behind the eyeball checked through a summary of the publisher’s page · no funding, several authors disclosed relationships with filler companies · the 365-case review in the text
• Kapoor KM, Kapoor P, Heydenrych I, et al. Vision Loss Associated with Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Systematic Review of Literature. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020;44(3):929-944. PMID 31822960 · abstract only · no conflict of interest statement in the PubMed record · the 44-case review in the text
• Rentfro K, Clarey D, Glenn EJ, et al. Soft Tissue Dermal Filler-Associated Necrosis and Impending Necrosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48(10):1051-1056. PMID 36129182 · abstract only · no conflict of interest statement in the PubMed record · the review of 192 necrosis case reports in the text
• Kang D, Hong SE. Legal analysis of South Korean cosmetic filler litigations for safer medical practices. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):13272. PMID 38858567 · full text checked · no conflicts of interest · the analysis of 27 Korean civil rulings in the text
• Chung KL, Convery C, Ejikeme I, et al. A Systematic Review of the Literature of Delayed Inflammatory Reactions After Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injection to Estimate the Incidence of Delayed Type Hypersensitivity Reaction. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(5):NP286-NP300. PMID 31410442 · abstract only · no conflict of interest statement in the PubMed record · the 2020 review in the text
• Humphrey S, Jones DH, Carruthers JD, et al. Retrospective review of delayed adverse events secondary to treatment with a smooth, cohesive 20-mg/mL hyaluronic acid filler in 4500 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(1):86-95. PMID 32035107 · abstract only · funded by Allergan · the 4,500-person study in the text
• Baranska-Rybak W, Lajo-Plaza JV, Walker L, et al. Late-Onset Reactions after Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers: A Consensus Recommendation on Etiology, Prevention and Management. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024;14(7):1767-1785. PMID 38907876 · full text checked · all authors advise Teoxane, publication fee paid by Teoxane · the 2024 consensus statement in the text
• Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mosahebi A, Zargaran D. A Scoping Review of Hyaluronidase Use in Managing the Complications of Aesthetic Interventions. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(6):1193-1209. PMID 36536092 · full text checked · no conflicts of interest · the 2024 hyaluronidase review in the text
• Alhusain AM, Alsaif M, Alkhathami AM, et al. Hyaluronidase Protocol in Management of Hyaluronic Acid Filler-Related Vascular Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50(6):2300-2317. PMID 41249530 · abstract only · no conflicts of interest · the analysis of 21 case studies in the text

Written by SKINMODU 2026-09-28 · Approval records checked 2026-09-22 · 2026-09-27 · 2026-09-28 · Studies checked 2026-09-27 · Cross-reviewed 2026-09-28 (Codex · Gemini) · Final review pending · No prices collected yet · English edition 2026-10-04, translated from the Korean page as of 2026-09-28