Comparison of Two Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A Preparations (Masport and Dysport) for Upper Face Rhytides: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Botulinum neurotoxin type A has played a key role in the treatment of facial rhytides. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of Masport and Dysport as botulinum toxin type A preparations in the treatment of upper face rhytides.

Methods: A double-blind randomized, clinical trial was conducted on adults with at least mild severity (scale 1) for lateral canthal (crow's feet), glabellar, and frontal lines at maximum contraction positions (dynamic status), regardless of their static scales (rest position). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either Masport or Dysport. Rhytides in each area were scaled at baseline and at post-injection weeks 2, 8, 12, and 16. Self-satisfaction were assessed at follow-ups.

Results: For both groups, a decrease in dynamic rhytides was observed at week 2 compared to baseline (all Ps < 0.05). Although dynamic rhytides increased again in subsequent follow-ups, they remained significantly lower than baseline levels until week 12 (all Ps < 0.05). By week 16, no differences were observed compared to baseline (all Ps > 0.05). While at week 2, both dynamic and static scales were higher in the Masport group (all Ps < 0.05), this difference did not persist for most of them at weeks 12 and 16. Satisfaction scores were similar between the groups throughout all follow-ups (all Ps > 0.05).

Conclusion: The onset and duration of action for Masport and Dysport are similar in the treatment of upper face rhytides at equal doses. While Dysport may initially show a stronger effect than Masport in treating upper face rhytides, this advantage does not persist in the long term.

Level of evidence i: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .