Minimally invasive treatments, particularly hyaluronic acid-based injectables, have gained widespread popularity due to their effectiveness and minimal downtime. A study found that in 2016 alone, over 2 million procedures involving HA dermal fillers were performed in the United States, underscoring the growing demand in aesthetic medicine.
Among these advanced treatments, NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo stand out as innovative options. While they behave similarly to dermal fillers, they are not designed to add volume or reshape facial features. Instead, NCTF 135 HA combines hyaluronic acid, vitamins, and amino acids to target fine lines and rejuvenate skin, whereas Profhilo focuses on deep hydration, collagen stimulation, and skin remodeling.
In this article, we will compare NCTF 135 HA vs Profhilo, highlighting their benefits, differences, and what patients can expect from each treatment.
Key Takeaways
- Although NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo behave similarly to dermal fillers, they are not the same. Unlike fillers, which add volume, these treatments focus on skin quality, hydration, and overall rejuvenation.
- NCTF 135 HA combines hyaluronic acid, vitamins, and amino acids to address fine lines, improve skin texture, and support collagen production.
- Profhilo contains a high concentration of pure hyaluronic acid, designed for deep hydration and skin remodeling, helping to firm and tighten sagging skin.
- Understanding their unique formulations and treatment purposes allows practitioners to tailor treatments effectively based on patient needs.
About: Medica Depot is your trusted all-in-one supplier, offering a range of high-quality medical injectables and supplies. Buy Fillmed products online at Medica Depot today! Whether for health professionals, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, licensed estheticians, or other specialists, we can offer genuine, brand-name products you may need. With Medica Depot, we prioritize serving you better to improve the patient’s quality of life.
Comparison of Ingredients and Mechanism of Action
The aesthetic field continues to advance, offering minimally invasive injectable treatments to address aging skin, hydration concerns, and overall skin quality. Two notable innovations, NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo, provide unique benefits, though they differ in composition and function. Understanding their active ingredients is essential for practitioners looking to choose the right treatment for their patients.
- NCTF 135 HA: This injectable contains 5 mg/ml of hyaluronic acid (HA) combined with 12 vitamins, 24 amino acids, 6 coenzymes, 6 minerals, nucleic acids, and other essential nutrients. It stimulates collagen and elastin production, promoting comprehensive skin rejuvenation while improving texture, elasticity, and hydration.
- Profhilo: Unlike traditional dermal fillers, Profhilo delivers one of the highest concentrations of pure HA, focusing on deep hydration, collagen stimulation, and skin remodeling. This process effectively improves skin laxity and restores firmness.
While their formulations differ, both NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo offer long-lasting effects by stimulating collagen production, making them valuable options for non-surgical skin rejuvenation.
Treatment Benefits and Target Areas
NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo offer powerful skin rejuvenation treatments, each targeting different areas and providing unique benefits. A thorough consultation with licensed medical professionals can ensure patient suitability and safety and equip patients with comprehensive information about the treatment, helping them make informed decisions.
- NCTF 135 HA: This injection is indicated to target fine lines and other signs of aging and enhance hydration and densification. It boasts versatility, with applications ranging from NCTF 135 HA under-eye treatments to full-face treatments and even the neck, chest, back of the hands, and internal face of the arms.
- Profhilo: Focusing on skin hydration, Profhilo can remodel aging skin and sagging tissue. This treatment can be used on various areas of the body, such as the face, neck, chest, hands, arms, knees, and abdomen, where skin laxity occurs.
Injection Techniques and Patient Outcomes
NCTF 135 HA only requires epidermis or dermis injection into the recommended targeted areas. Practitioners should utilize mesotherapy, which involves multiple small injections administered using a fine needle.
Meanwhile, Profhilo is usually administered using the BAP technique, which requires injecting the solution into targeted points within the treatment area. The precision results in faster treatment times and recovery.
Clinical Outcomes and Session Duration
A controlled trial by Fanian et al. (2023) showed that NCTF 135 HA is a highly effective and well-tolerated treatment for reducing the signs of skin aging. Moreover, its results far surpass those of a standard anti-aging cream.
On the other hand, a study by Sparavigna and Tenconi (2016) demonstrated that Profhilo’s low- and high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid significantly enhanced facial skin quality and achieved its bio-remodeling objectives.
Practitioners must adhere to the recommended treatment protocols when administering these minimally invasive injections. This can ensure treatment effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction.
- NCTF 135 HA: Typically requires three sessions spaced by 15 days and two sessions spaced out by one month. Maintenance treatments might be recommended every six months.
- Profhilo: Compared to NCTF 135 HA, Profhilo generally involves fewer sessions, with most patients requiring only one or two treatments. Patients may repeat treatment protocols to maintain results.
Patient Feedback
Both treatments have usually received positive patient outcomes, earning the trust of practitioners and patients. Potential patients should look into various Profhilo and NCTF 135 HA before and after photos to see the solution’s effectiveness in delivering skin rejuvenation and bioremodeling.
Conclusion
When choosing between NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo, practitioners must assess each patient’s unique needs and aesthetic goals. NCTF 135 HA is ideal for targeted hydration and fine-line reduction, making it a great option for improving skin texture and treating delicate areas like the under-eye region.
Meanwhile, Profhilo works best for patients seeking deep hydration and skin remodeling, particularly in areas with significant laxity. With fewer required sessions, both treatments provide effective, non-invasive skin rejuvenation.
Ultimately, the choice between these injectables depends on practitioner expertise, patient concerns, and desired outcomes, ensuring a personalized approach to aesthetic enhancement.
FAQs
1. What are NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo used for?
NCTF 135 HA primarily targets fine lines and enhances skin hydration, making it versatile for various body areas. Profhilo focuses on skin hydration and remodeling to address skin laxity, which is suitable for the face, neck, and hands.
2. How do the injection techniques differ between NCTF 135 HA and Profhilo?
NCTF 135 HA injections are administered using a mesotherapy technique with multiple small injections. In contrast, Profhilo employs the BAP technique, which involves injecting at specific points in the treatment area for quicker sessions and recovery.
3. How many treatment sessions are typically required for each filler?
NCTF 135 HA usually requires three sessions spaced 15 days apart, with maintenance every six months. Profhilo often requires only one or two treatments, making it a more time-efficient option for many patients.
References
- Lin, Z. Y. (William), Shah, V., Dhinakar, A., Yildirimer, L., Cui, W.-G., & Zhao, X. (2016). Intradermal fillers for minimally invasive treatment of facial aging. Plastic and Aesthetic Research, 3(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2015.121
- Cristian Guarise. (2021, October 3). HA-based dermal filler: downstream process comparison, impurity quantitation by validated HPLC-MS analysis, and in vivo residence time study. Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials; SAGE Publications. https://www.academia.edu/55218866/HA_based_dermal_filler_downstream_process_comparison_impurity_quantitation_by_validated_HPLC_MS_analysis_and_in_vivo_residence_time_study
