lidocaine and Skin Aging

lidocaine has been researched along with Skin Aging in 77 studies

Lidocaine: A local anesthetic and cardiac depressant used as an antiarrhythmia agent. Its actions are more intense and its effects more prolonged than those of PROCAINE but its duration of action is shorter than that of BUPIVACAINE or PRILOCAINE.
lidocaine : The monocarboxylic acid amide resulting from the formal condensation of N,N-diethylglycine with 2,6-dimethylaniline.

Skin Aging: The process of aging due to changes in the structure and elasticity of the skin over time. It may be a part of physiological aging or it may be due to the effects of ultraviolet radiation, usually through exposure to sunlight.

Research

Studies (77)

Authors

Clinical Trials (15)

Trial Overview

Trial Outcomes

Percent Change From Baseline in Face-Q Satisfaction

The participant assessed satisfaction using the Face-Q Satisfaction with Lower Face and Jawline module (Rasch transformed score 0-100; higher scores mean better outcome). (NCT03583359)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 12

Responder Rate According to the Merz Jawline Assessment Scale (MJAS)

MJAS was a 5-point scale (0-4 scores; higher scores mean worse outcome). Responder rate was defined as percentage of participants with a greater than or equal to (>=) 1-point improvement. (NCT03583359)
Timeframe: At Week 12

Responder Rate According to the MJAS as Assessed by Independent Panel Reviewers (IPRs)

MJAS was a 5-point scale (0-4 scores; higher scores mean worse outcome). Responder rate was defined as percentage of participants with a >=1-point improvement. (NCT03583359)
Timeframe: At Week 12

Number of Participants Reporting One or More Device and/or Injection Related Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Device and/or Injection Related Serious TEAEs

(NCT03583359)
Timeframe: Baseline up to end of study (Week 60)

Number of Participants Reporting One or More Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)

(NCT03650387)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or Week 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Cheek Fullness Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the Merz Upper Cheek Fullness Scale (MUCFS) at Week 12/16 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MUCFS was used to assess the severity of volume loss of upper cheeks. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right cheek by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MUCFS was a 5 point scale ranging as: 0 (full upper cheek), 1 (mildly sunken upper cheek), 2 (moderately sunken upper cheek), 3 (severely sunken upper cheek), 4 (very severely sunken upper cheek). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of >=1 point in both cheeks (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 12/16 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 12 or Week 16 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 12 (for participants with no touch-up) or Week 16 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Marionette Lines Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the Merz Marionette Lines Scale (MMLS) at Week 12/16 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MMLS was used to assess the severity of marionette lines. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right marionette line by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MMLS was a 5 point scale ranging as: 0 (no lines), 1 (mild lines), 2 (moderate lines), 3 (severe lines), 4 (very severe lines). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of >=1 point in both marionette lines (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 12/16 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 12 or Week 16 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 12 (for participants with no touch-up) or Week 16 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Nasolabial Folds Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the Merz Nasolabial Folds Scale (MNLFS) at Week 12/16 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MNLFS was used to assess the severity of nasolabial folds. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right nasolabial fold by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MNLFS was a 5 point scale ranging as: 0 (no folds), 1 (mild folds), 2 (moderate folds), 3 (severe folds), 4 (very severe folds). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of greater than or equal to (>=) 1 point in both folds (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 12/16 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 12 or Week 16 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 12 (for participants with no touch-up) or Week 16 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Cheek Fullness Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the MUCFS at Week 4 (Prior to Optional Touch-up), at Week 24/28, at Week 48/52, and at Week 72/76 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MUCFS was used to assess the severity of volume loss of upper cheeks. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right cheek by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MUCFS was based on 5 point scale ranging from: 0 (full upper cheek), 1 (mildly sunken upper cheek), 2 (moderately sunken upper cheek), 3 (severely sunken upper cheek), 4 (very severely sunken upper cheek). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of >=1 point in both cheeks (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 4, Week 24/28, Week 48/52, and Week 72/76 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 24 or 28, Week 48 or 52, and Week 72 or 76 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up); at Weeks 24, 48 and 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or at Weeks 28, 52 and 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Marionette Lines Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the MMLS at Week 4 (Prior to Optional Touch-up), at Week 24/28, at Week 48/52, and at Week 72/76 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MMLS was to be used to assess the severity of marionette lines. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right marionette line by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MMLS was a 5 point scale ranging from: 0 (no lines), 1 (mild lines), 2 (moderate lines), 3 (severe lines), 4 (very severe lines). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of >=1 point in both marionette lines (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 4, Week 24/28, Week 48/52, and Week 72/76 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 24 or 28, Week 48 or 52, and Week 72 or 76 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up); and at Weeks 24, 48 and 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or at Weeks 28, 52 and 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Responder Rate for Nasolabial Folds Based on the Blinded Rater's Evaluation on the MNLFS at Week 4 (Prior to Optional Touch-up), at Week 24/28, at Week 48/52, and at Week 72/76 (Depending on Touch-up)

The MNLFS was used to assess the severity of nasolabial folds. The assessment was performed separately for the left and the right nasolabial fold by the blinded rater and the treating investigator (at baseline only prior to SMD injection) by live rating. MNLFS was a 5 point scale ranging as: 0 (no folds), 1 (mild folds), 2 (moderate folds), 3 (severe folds), 4 (very severe folds). Responders rate was defined as percentage of participants who achieved improvement of >=1 point in both folds (left and right) from Day 1 pre-injection to Week 4, Week 24/28, Week 48/52, and Week 72/76 (depending on touch-up). As planned, the cumulative data was collected for Week 24 or 28, Week 48 or 52, and Week 72 or 76 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up); at Weeks 24, 48 and 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or at Weeks 28, 52 and 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Number of Participants Based on Participant's Evaluation of the Global Aesthetic Improvement on the sGAIS at Week 4 (Prior to Optional Touch-up), Week 12/16, Week 24/28, Week 48/52, and Week 72/76 (Depending on Touch-up Performed)

The Subject's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (sGAIS) was used to assess aesthetic improvement in the participants by the participant by live rating using baseline photographs for comparison. The participant was asked: 'What is your overall impression of change of your aesthetic result due to treatment, compared to the condition before the injection? Please tick the one option that best fits your overall impression of change based on your comparison of the baseline visit photographs.' Rating based on 7 point rating scale ranging from: +3 (very much improved), +2 (much improved), +1 (improved), 0 (no change), -1 (worse), -2 (much worse), -3 (very much worse). As planned, the cumulative data was collected at Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up), Week 12 or 16, Week 24 or 28, Week 48 or 52, and Week 72 or 76 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up); at Weeks 12, 24, 48 and 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or at Weeks 16, 28, 52 and 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Number of Participants Based on Treating Investigator's Evaluation of the Global Aesthetic Improvement on the iGAIS at Week 4 (Prior to Optional Touch-up), Week 12/16, Week 24/28, Week 48/52, and Week 72/76 (Depending on Touch-up Performed)

The Investigator's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (iGAIS) was used to assess aesthetic improvement in the participants by the treating investigator by live rating using baseline photographs for comparison. The treating investigator was asked: 'Based on your clinical experience, what is your overall impression of change of the participant's aesthetic result due to treatment, compared to the condition before the first treatment (baseline)? Please check the one option that best fits your overall impression of change based on your comparison of the baseline visit photographs.' Rating was based on 7 point rating scale ranging from: +3 (very much improved), +2 (much improved), +1 (improved), 0 (no change), -1 (worse), -2 (much worse), -3 (very much worse). As planned, the cumulative data was collected at Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up), Week 12 or 16, Week 24 or 28, Week 48 or 52, and Week 72 or 76 based on the touch-up. (NCT03650387)
Timeframe: At Week 4 (prior to optional touch-up); at Weeks 12, 24, 48 and 72 (for participants with no touch-up) or at Weeks 16, 28, 52 and 76 (for participants with touch-up)

Percent Responders With 1 Point Improvement on the Medicis Midface Volume Scale

"The primary objective is to demonstrate superiority of Perlane-Lido relative to no-treatment in the treatment of Midface volume Deficit and/or Midface Contour Deficiency by comparing the percent responders, defined by at least 1 point improvement from baseline on the MMVS on both sides of the face, as measured by blinded evaluator at 6 months.~Medicis Midface Volume Scale (MMVS) is a 4-grade scale assesses the fullness of the midface from Fairly Full (1) to Substantial Loss of Fullness (4) as described below. The blinded evaluator and treating investigator will rate the subject's right and left midface for severity of volume deficiency using the MMVS at all applicable study visits.~Fairly full midface~Mild loss of fullness in midface area~Moderate loss of fullness with slight hollowing below malar prominence~Substantial loss of fullness in the midface area, clearly apparent hollowing below malar prominence" (NCT03097783)
Timeframe: 6 month

Non-inferiority of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into the Upper Perioral Rhytids.

"Injection pain during injection was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects immediately after injection of each upper perioral quadrant.~VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain" (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 - During Injection

"Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment"

"Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse.~GAI was assessed using the baseline photograph. Subjects were instructed as follows: Use a mirror to compare your face to the photograph provided to you and rate the degree of aesthetic improvement by using the following scale.~Each side of the face was assessed independently." (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)

"Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI)"

"Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse.~GAI will bewas assessed using the baseline photograph. Each side of the mouth were assessed independently." (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)

Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI)

"PR-SRS (Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale) is a validated 4-grade scale with 0 being Absent and 3 being Severe" (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 (Baseline, pre-injection) - Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30)

Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth.

"Injection pain was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects in each side of the mouth.~VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain" (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 - 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes post-injection

Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine

"The subjects will receive a diary booklet and instructions for recording his/her observations of the Common Treatment Responses to the study treatments within 30 days following the treatment. The diary will be discussed during follow-up phone-call and visit. Subjects were instructed to complete the diary at approximately the same time each day (i.e., am or pm).~The subject diary captured the following Common Treatment Responses (CTR) that occur following the injection of a dermal filler; specifically, redness, pain, tenderness, firmness, swelling, lumps/bumps, bruising, itching, discoloration, and other.~The 30-day patient CTR diary included a detailed glossary describing all signs/symptoms listed in the diary; an option was provided to report other reactions if the subject experienced a sign/symptom that was not listed." (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: During 30 days after injection

Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire.

"The FACE-Q measures the experience and outcomes of aesthetic facial procedures from the patient's perspective.~FACE-Q questionnaire is composed of 6 questions with a score linked to answers (1 being 'Not at all' and 4 being 'Extremely').~The subject will be instructed as follows: These questions ask about how you look right now. For each question, circle only one answer. With the area around your lips in mind, in the past week, how much have you been bothered by:, and will provide response.~To calculate the FACE-Q, outcomes from all 6 questions were pooled, data were transformed so that higher scores reflected a superior outcome, and adapted to a scale of 100 units (i.e. lowest score = 0, highest score = 100)." (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 (Baseline) and Visit 2 (Day 30)

"Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale"

"The Subject Satisfaction Scale is a subjective, balanced, 5-point scale assessing subject satisfaction with study treatment. Possible scores range from with 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied).~Proportion of subjects who were Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) was compared to the proportion of subjects who were Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied)" (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)

Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI

A responder corresponds to a subject with an intra-individual improvement of at least one grade on the PR-SRS compared to Baseline (NCT04069585)
Timeframe: Visit 1 - Baseline (pre-injection), Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30)

Number of Participants That Responded to Treatment

To assess effectiveness using the 4-point Midface Volume Scale. Responder defined as at least a one point improvement from the baseline score at 2 weeks after week 16 re-treatment (visit only required for participants who received re-treatment at week 16). (NCT03160716)
Timeframe: 16 weeks

Number of Participants With Aesthetic Improvement

"To assess effectiveness using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Responders defined as Improved or better on the GAIS as assessed by the investigator and participant at 2 weeks after week 16 re-treatment (visit only required for participants who received re-treatment at week 16)." (NCT03160716)
Timeframe: 16 weeks

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events [Safety]

To assess the adverse events (incidence, intensity, and duration) of Restylane® Lyft with Lidocaine in conjunction with the use of a cannula. (NCT03160716)
Timeframe: 16 weeks

Subject Satisfaction

To assess subject satisfaction with the treatment using the FACE-Q. Score range 1-100. The higher total score indicate greater subject satisfaction. (NCT03160716)
Timeframe: 8 weeks

Number of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Reduction in Pain As Defined by a ≥ 2.0-cm Reduction in VAS

"In this split-face study, a clinically meaningful difference in pain was defined as a 2-cm reduction (i.e., subject reports at least 2-cm less pain on a 10-cm VAS) in the Radiesse® Mixed with Lidocaine NLF when compared to the Radiesse® without Lidocaine NLF." (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: Immediately after injection (Time 0)

Pain Score Using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain (0 = no Pain, 10 = Very Severe Pain)

"Assessment of whether a statistically significant reduction in pain score in the Radiesse® Mixed with Lidocaine nasolabial fold was observed when compared to the Radiesse® without Lidocaine nasolabial fold using a 10-cm visual analog pain scale (0 = no pain, 10 = very severe pain).~In the study protocol, the assessment of achieving a statistically significant reduction in pain at time zero was selected a priori to be analyzed using a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis that the mean of the differences in VAS scores between the Treatment and Control folds is equal to zero." (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: Immediately after injection (Time 0)

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 1 Week Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 1 week post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 15 Minutes Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 15 minutes post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 2 Weeks Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 2 weeks post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 30 Minutes Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 30 minutes post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 4 Weeks Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 4 weeks post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 45 Minutes Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 45 minutes post injection

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Pain Score 60 Minutes Post Injection

A 10-cm VAS (with 21 total circles, marked at 0.5 cm intervals) was used in which 0 = no pain and 10 = very severe pain. (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: 60 minutes post injection

Assess Subject Preference to Pain

"2 questions were asked of 101 subjects: 1) Was one treatment less painful than the other? and 2) Was the difference in pain levels significant enough to affect your preference for one treatment over the other?~Only those participants responding yes to these 2 questions about pain and preference for treatment are reported in the table below." (NCT01069354)
Timeframe: Immediately after injection (Time 0)

Mean Pain Level Associated With Facial Filler Injection at the Upper Lip

Participant will complete a questionnaire to evaluate his/her pain level perception using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during injection of HA filler to the upper lip. The Visual Analog scale uses a 10 cm horizontal line with 'no pain' labeled on the left end of line and 'worst pain' on the right end of line. Participant marks their pain level at any point on the line from no pain to worst pain. No pain= 0 cm, Worst pain=10cm (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: 5-10 minutes post procedure

Mean Pain Level Associated With Facial Filler Injection to the Lower Lip

A mean level of pain for all participants completing the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during injection of HA filler to the lower lip. The Visual Analog scale uses a 10 cm horizontal line with 'no pain' labeled on the left end of line and 'worst pain' on the right end of line. Participant marks their pain level at any point on the line from no pain to worst pain. No pain= 0 cm, Worst pain=10cm. The total score was divided by 48. (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: 5-10 minutes post procedure

Mean Pain Level Associated With Facial Filler Injection to the Nasolabial Fold

Participant will complete a questionnaire to evaluate his/her pain level perception using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during injection of HA filler to the nasolabial fold. The Visual Analog scale uses a 10 cm horizontal line with 'no pain' labeled on the left end of line and 'worst pain' on the right end of line. Participant marks their pain level at any point on the line from no pain to worst pain. No pain= 0 cm, Worst pain=10cm (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: 5-10 minutes post procedure

Mean Pain Level Associated With the Local Anesthetic Injection

Participant will complete a questionnaire to evaluate his/her pain level perception using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during injection to the upper and lower lip. The Visual Analog scale uses a 10 cm horizontal line with 'no pain' labeled on the left end of line and 'worst pain' on the right end of line. Participant marks their pain level at any point on the line from no pain to worst pain. No pain= 0 cm, Worst pain=10cm (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: 5-10 minutes post-procedure

Mean Pain Level Associated With the Local Topical Anesthetic

Participant will complete a questionnaire to evaluate his/her pain level perception using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) during application of topical anesthesia to the upper and lower lip. The Visual Analog scale uses a 10 cm horizontal line with 'no pain' labeled on the left end of line and 'worst pain' on the right end of line. Participant marks their pain level at any point on the line from no pain to worst pain. No pain= 0 cm, Worst pain=10cm (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: 5-10 min post procedure

Participants Anesthetic Preference

Patient will complete a questionnaire to evaluate his/her preference of anesthetic modality. (NCT02379221)
Timeframe: one week post treatment

Procedural Pain Score

Evaluate pain on an 11-point scale, where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain imaginable. (NCT00653861)
Timeframe: 1 day

Comparative Pain

A 5-point scale (-2 = Right NLF more painful than Left NLF; -1 = Right NLF slightly more painful than Left NLF; 0 = No difference; 1 = Left NLF slightly more painful than Right NLF; 2 = Left NLF more painful than Right NLF). Subjects selected one category from the scale; the percentage of subjects that selected each category is presented. (NCT00653861)
Timeframe: 1 day

Nasolabial Fold (NLF) Severity

Determination of improvement in NLF severity score on 5-point NLF Severity Scale (0 = None; 1 = Mild; 2 = Moderate; 3 = Severe; 4 = Extreme) two weeks after treatment with Juvederm with Lidocaine (either Ultra or Ultra Plus) in one nasolabial fold and Juvederm (either Ultra or Ultra Plus) in the other nasolabial fold. (NCT00653861)
Timeframe: 2 weeks

Reviews

1 review available for lidocaine and Skin Aging

Trials

35 trials available for lidocaine and Skin Aging

Other Studies

41 other studies available for lidocaine and Skin Aging