Teosyal vs Juvederm: Similarities and Differences Reviewed
- Medical Community Member - July 10th 2019
A meaningful comparison between injectable dermal fillers can sometimes be difficult to undertake. Although there are a multitude of injectable fillers available, a great majority of them have either very few or no high-quality randomized controlled trials to support their use. This gives rise to a lack of guidance on both the efficacy and safety of these products. Fortunately, the brands of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers that will be discussed in this article, Teosyal and Juvederm, are proven to be beneficial to patients.
Differences between Teosyal vs Juvederm
Teosyal is a brand of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers that are manufactured by Teoxane Laboratories. Their product line consists of the Classic line of fillers and the PureSense line (these fillers includes lidocaine, a local anesthetic agent that improves patient comfort during the injection procedure), Teosyal First Line, Global Action, Deep Lines, Kiss, and Ultra Deep. This is not an exhaustive list of their products, as the products sold vary in each country. As their names suggest, Teosyal’s fillers have different clinical applications, as they differ in hyaluronic acid content and the level of cross-linking, which are important factors in determining the character of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers. The Teosyal family is an easy-to-inject hyaluronic acid dermal filler, and with Teosyal RHA, its newly launched family of products, they aim to produce more models with for specific indications to yield better results.
Juvederm fillers, on the other hand, are manufactured by Allergan, which is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. There are two Juvederm product lines: one that uses Hylacross technology and another that uses Vycross technology. Both Hylacross and Vycross are proprietary cross-linking technologies.
Juvederm Ultra and Ultra Plus are from the Hylacross product line and focus mostly on the treatment of the lips, nasolabial folds, and marionette lines. Juvederm Ultra and Ultra Plus are suited for these indications due to their high cohesivity, which plays a crucial role in their lifting prowess; Ultra Plus’s high cohesivity due to increased crosslinking also helps it be more effective in regard to the aforementioned indications. These two fillers are also made from high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid and, as such, attract water at a greater rate than Vycross products. Their higher concentration of hyaluronic acid also increases their duration of action.
The Vycross fillers include Juvederm Voluma, Vollure, and Volbella and have much specific uses than their Hylacross counterparts due to their unique initial moldability, which is only possible because they have a lower cohesivity than the Hylacross products. Vycross products consist of both high- and low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, a combination that results in less gel swelling due to lower water uptake.
Differences in patient satisfaction: Teosyal vs Juvederm
The differences between the two filler brands are few and far between. However, both fillers produce satisfactory results when compared to other hyaluronic acid-based fillers.
One high-quality randomized controlled trial compared Teosyal Deep Lines with another hyaluronic acid-based filler in 60 participants with moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds. Both products were efficacious immediately after injection and had good durability over time. Although the two products were comparable terms of results, patient tolerance, and side effects, more participants still preferred the results of Teosyal Deep Lines over the other filler.
Voluma is the product of choice when it comes to lifting and volumizing, especially for correction of midfacial volume deficit. Vollure can be an excellent choice for treating the perioral, forehead, and brow regions, while Volbella is suitable for fine line filling because it is soft and malleable. Convincing evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of Juvederm fillers comes from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial by Baumann et al. that was carried out in 2006. This trial compared bovine collagen and Juvederm Ultra and Ultra Plus in respect to nasolabial fold treatment, and in it, the Juvederm fillers had better product longevity in patients with comparable injection-related local site reactions to those of the bovine collagen treatment. Subsequently published literature on Juvederm fillers continued to show consistently promising results in line with other hyaluronic acid dermal fillers.
Many doctors discuss the similarities between the two filler brands, as they have a similar mechanism of action, list of ingredients, and duration of action. In conclusion, both Teosyal and Juvederm fillers are very similar in terms of efficacy and safety. Either brand can help achieve a desired look. Perhaps the deciding factor between these two brands lies mostly on the practitioner’s comfort and expertise with either brand’s products.