Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsRetrospective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

The Liquid Genioplasty: Different Techniques Compared

Goisis M., Veronese S., Kasilovska P., Malakhova O., Hirache K., Nicoletti MM.

Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 225 on Face & Skin, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Retrospective Study
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2026)
Reported sample size
225
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41644820
PMCID
PMC13102854
DOI
10.1007/s00266-025-05557-6

Abstract (original English)

Background Non-surgical genioplasty is one of the best choices in cases of chin retrusion, and it represents a solution for the aesthetic amelioration of facial profile. Recent concerns arose about the risk of bone resorption and vascular occlusion. Different procedures and products may lead to different results. This study reports the experience of a single facial plastic surgeon (M.G.) using non-surgical techniques to fill the chin. Methods This retrospective study assesses 225 patients injected from January 2019 through March 2024 in private clinics in Milan (Italy), London (UK), and Dubai (UAE). Forty-five patients were injected with hyaluronic acid (Genefill DX 1x1 ml, BioScience GmbH, Dümmer, Germany), 90 underwent a lipofilling procedure, and 90 underwent a Dermgraft procedure, that is, a personalized lipofilling, modified by the main author. Half of the last 180 patients underwent shock waves before fat harvesting. Patients were followed up for 12 months, and facial angles and satisfaction data were analyzed. Three experts scored the results over time. Results After all the treatments, facial angles were corrected, but the maintenance of the results varied for the different treatments. Notably, at 3 months, the levels of satisfaction were higher for the HA filler treatment, while at 1 year, the levels of satisfaction were very high for the Dermgraft. Conclusions Liquid

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Adipose TissueHumansHyaluronic AcidTreatment OutcomeRetrospective StudiesCohort StudiesEstheticsAdultMiddle AgedPatient Satisfaction

Browse all related research

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

Related research