Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

Comparative Effects of Injectable Biostimulatory Agents (Calcium Hydroxyapatite, New Cellular Treatment Factor, VAMP, and Human Exosomes) and Their Combination on Skin Regeneration.

Adel N., Kolenda J., Hernández Gómez Crespo F., Zavala Resendiz GY., Jo YK., Thulesen IV.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 24 on Skin Aging, published in Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2026)
Country
England
Reported sample size
24
Source database
PubMed
PMID
42416603
DOI
10.1093/asjof/ojag071

Abstract (original English)

Injectable biostimulatory and bioactive agents are increasingly used to enhance dermal regeneration and improve skin quality. Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN), polyrevitalizing multicomponent solutions, calcium hydroxylapatite microspheres, and human-derived exosomes have been proposed to stimulate fibroblast activity, collagen remodeling, and angiogenesis. However, direct comparative evidence in intact skin remains limited. The aim of this study was to compare the histological and angiogenic effects of PDRN, polyrevitalizing solutions, calcium hydroxylapatite, human-derived exosomes, and their combination on dermal regeneration in intact skin using a hamster model. One hundred and sixty-eight adult Syrian hamsters were randomized into 7 groups ( n = 24/group): untreated control, saline control, polyrevitalizing solution, PDRN, exosomes, calcium hydroxylapatite, and combination therapy. All treatments were administered subcutaneously (0.1 mL per site). Skin samples were collected at days 3, 7, and 14 ( n = 8/group/time point). Histological evaluation included hematoxylin-eosin, Masson's trichrome, and Van Gieson staining to assess dermal architecture and collagen organization. Angiogenesis was quantified using CD34 immunohistochemistry and microvessel density analysis. All active treatments increased dermal cellularity, collagen deposition, and microvessel density compared with c

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research