2018 / Randomized, evaluator-blinded active comparison
Less volume is not a universal dosing rule.
What can a small comparative lip study establish?
Source access: publication abstract
The study#
- Design
- Randomized, evaluator-blinded active comparison
- Population
- 60 participants; 31 HA-RK and 29 HA-JV
- Follow-up / endpoint
- 12 months
- Source
- Dermatologic Surgery, 2018 · PMID 29059146
What the authors found#
Mean volume to the target lip-fullness improvement was 1.54 ml for HA-RK versus 1.94 ml for HA-JV. Improvements persisted in both groups.[1]
Editorial interpretation
Why it is interesting#
Material properties and the study protocol can affect the volume needed for a chosen endpoint.
Keep lip fullness, aesthetic improvement and injected volume as separate measurements.
What it cannot tell us#
- Small sample and named study formulations.
- Mean volumes are trial observations, not patient-specific prescriptions or proof of overall superiority.
Selection for this library reflects educational interest. It is not a systematic search, formal certainty grade, or complete account of the literature.
Funding & commercial context#
A co-author is affiliated with Galderma; see the full publication for its funding and conflict-of-interest statements.
Continue with the product
Source & citation#
Hilton et al. — two HA gels for lip enhancement ↗Checked 2026-09-06 · Dermatologic Surgery, 2018 · PMID 29059146. Cite the original publication when discussing its results; this page is an interpretation.
Aesthetic Pass. Less volume is not a universal dosing rule. Product Atlas research interpretation 2026.09.06.1. https://aestheticpass.com/products/studies/kysse-volbella-lip-study/