Trinh (2021): Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review
Lily N. Trinh, Amar Gupta · Facial Plastic Surgery, 2021PMID: 33634456
Supports: Systematic review of 18 studies across 7 HA formulations demonstrates high patient satisfaction with mid-face augmentation lasting up to 24 months. Adverse events (bruising, swelling, tenderness) were mild and typically resolved within 2 weeks. Confirms HA fillers are an attractive choice for cheek augmentation due to long-lasting effects and low side-effect profile.
Limitations: Variability in injection technique, clinician expertise, and subjective outcome measurements across studies prevented identification of a single optimal protocol. No standardised assessment tool used across all studies. Additional RCTs needed for more conclusive technique recommendations.
View on PubMed →Master (2024): Hyaluronic Acid Filler Longevity in the Mid-face: A Review of 33 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies
Mobin Master, Arshia Azizeddin, Vahid Master · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 2024PMID: 39015357
Supports: MRI evidence from 33 patients confirms HA filler persistence in the mid-face well beyond the conventional 3-12 month estimate. Filler was detectable in all 33 patients at 2+ years post-injection, with 21 patients retaining filler at 2-5 years and 12 at over 5 years. Demonstrates 95% CI of 84.47% plus or minus 4.43% filler persistence, supporting claims of long-lasting cheek filler results.
Limitations: Small cohort (33 patients). Nine of 33 patients were referred for oedema concerns, introducing potential selection bias. MRI detects filler presence but does not measure aesthetic outcome or patient satisfaction. Retrospective design with no standardised injection volumes or products across patients.
View on PubMed →Colon (2023): Adverse Events Reported From Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler Injections to the Facial Region: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Jessica Colon, Sophia Mirkin, Patrick Hardigan, Matthew J. Elias, Robin J. Jacobs · Cureus, 2023PMID: 37261136
Supports: Meta-analysis of 19 RCTs quantifying adverse event rates from HA fillers (Juvederm, Restylane) by facial region including midface (cheek). Common AEs were swelling, pain, erythema, bruising, lumps/bumps, firmness, and tenderness. Swelling, lumps, and firmness rates differed significantly between nasolabial fold and midface/cheek sites, supporting site-specific safety counselling. Most AEs were mild and self-resolving.
Limitations: Focused on US-market products (Juvederm, Restylane); may not generalise to all HA formulations. RCT populations may underrepresent real-world complication rates due to strict inclusion criteria and experienced injectors. Did not assess rare severe complications (vascular occlusion, blindness) due to low incidence in trial settings.
View on PubMed →El-Mesidy (2020): Nasolabial fold correction through cheek volume loss restoration versus thread lifting: a comparative study
Marwa S. El-Mesidy, Waseem T. Alaklouk, Omar A. Azzam · Archives of Dermatological Research, 2020PMID: 31898756
Supports: RCT comparing HA cheek filler injection vs thread lifting for nasolabial fold correction. Cheek fillers achieved statistically significant improvement (GAIS 2.2 plus or minus 0.79) with 70% patient satisfaction, confirming that mid-face volume restoration with HA fillers effectively lifts nasolabial folds. Fillers recommended for patients with volume-depleted faces seeking both fold reduction and cheek contouring.
Limitations: Small sample size (20 patients, 10 per group). Single-session treatment with only 2-month follow-up — long-term durability not assessed. No blinding of outcome assessors. Single-centre study which may limit generalisability.
View on PubMed →*PRP London Clinic provides these references for educational purposes. Our Clinical Board regularly reviews emerging peer-reviewed literature to ensure our protocols align with the latest advancements in regenerative medicine.