Sometimes, Less Is More
BDDE, the crosslinking agent for hyaluronic acid, enables a dermal filler to have more longevity and viscoelastic properties. However, when it does not participate in crosslinking, the residual BDDE is classified as a hazardous substance. After years of research, we have developed a technology that enables us to remove residual BDDE efficiently. But... what if it was possible to reduce the amount of BDDE used at all? If longevity and viscoelasticity are controlled by the amount of crosslinking agent used, then more would be used to reach higher longevity and viscoelastic properties. However, we have found that this could increase residual BDDE, and also cause the gel to be excessively hard causing difficulty to the practitioner. To solve such issues, we have successfully developed a technology that increases the efficiency of crosslinking. Now, even with the use of minimal BDDE, we are still able to achieve our desired viscoelastic properties for a filler that would result to more natural and safer results.
Less, in Numbers
We believed that how much we had taken away should be shown in numbers, not words. The degree of modification (MoD) tells how much cross-linker is bound to the hyaluronic acid: the number of BDDE per 100 HA disaccharide units. The lower it is, the closer the HA stays to its natural form, and the less the body treats it as foreign.1 Yet not every bound BDDE actually cross-links. A pendant BDDE, attached at one end only, adds nothing to the gel and only raises the MoD; it is closer to an impurity.3 So alongside the MoD we look at the cross-linker ratio (CrR), the share of BDDE bound at both ends. A low MoD with a high CrR means we spared the cross-linker and still wove the gel properly. Recent textbooks on fillers reach the same conclusion: rheology, cohesiveness, MoD, NMR data, and impurities should be read together when choosing a filler.4
The Lowest Degree of Modification
A study examined thirteen fillers on the market by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).1 Their degrees of modification ranged widely, from 2.2% to 17.1%, and the lowest value was Lorient, while its cross-linker ratio stood among the higher ones. The paper describes a low MoD paired with a high CrR as efficient cross-linking, with less cross-linker and less BDDE left behind. These numbers confirmed that our decision to take away from the very start had been right.
2.2%Lorient's degree of modification1 2.2 – 17.1%Range across thirteen fillers on the market
0.227Lorient's cross-linker ratio (range across the thirteen 0.014 – 0.394)
Controlling Aspects Invisible to the Naked Eye
We seriously considered our role as a manufacturer when it comes to the side effects of fillers. We wanted to manufacture a filler - considered a medical device - with the same strict specifications as pharmaceuticals. By complying with pharmaceutical GMP standards, we control everything in the production process from incoming of materials to release of finished products very strictly with most procedures being performed in cleanroom areas. As a result, this enables us to prevent the inflow of insoluble particles and microbes invisible to the naked eye (as small as 25 microns), which can cause inflammatory reactions.
The Cleanest Filler
Insoluble particles are tiny foreign matter drifting undissolved inside a product: metal shed from equipment, aluminum from glass syringes, silicone oil used as a lubricant. Mixed into a filler that stays in the body for months, they can seed delayed inflammatory reactions and granulomas.2,3 Because fillers are classified as medical devices, most countries set no particle limit for them. We designed our process from the very beginning with U.S. FDA approval in mind, and so we hold ourselves to a standard fillers are never asked to meet: the limits the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP <788>) sets for particulate matter in injectables.2
≥ 10 µm
No more than 6,000 per containerParticulate matter limit for injectables (USP · Ph. Eur.)
≥ 25 µm
No more than 600 per containerParticulate matter limit for injectables (USP · Ph. Eur.)
Lorient
The fewest foreign particles among twelve fillers on the market1,246 particles ≥ 10 µm · 82 particles ≥ 25 µm per 1 mL (as measured in the study, mean of three runs). Both limits are met.2 One study dissolved twelve fillers on the market completely with hyaluronidase and examined what remained on a 1 µm filter under an electron microscope (SEM) with elemental analysis (EDS).2 Seven of the twelve exceeded the injectable limit for particles of 10 µm and larger, and silicon, aluminum, and iron were found in some. The only filler in which nothing but the filter material itself was detected was Lorient. This is what our resolve to remove even the invisible has come to.
Beyond General Standards
We believe that maintaining high purity is the easiest way to ensure the reliability of our product. Such is the reason why we purposely set standards more stringent than general standards regarding impurities. As a result, we could reduce the amount of residual BDDE and endotoxin to levels not only less than our strict in-house standards, but also lower than the detection limits of high-grade testing equipment.
A review of the causes of delayed inflammatory reaction names the risks inherent in a filler itself as residual and pendant BDDE, impurities mixed in during manufacturing, low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, and endotoxin, and concludes that an ideal filler should be as pure as possible.3 The accepted threshold for residual BDDE is 2 ppm.1 Our standard was never the threshold, but the detection limit.
References
- 1 Lee W, Yang EJ. Structural Analysis of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: Implications for Quality Control and Clinical Performance. Polymers 2024;16(20):2878. doi:10.3390/polym16202878
- 2 Lee W, Rho NK, Yang EJ. Determination of Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler Impurities Using SEM/EDS analysis. Polymers 2023;15(7):1649. doi:10.3390/polym15071649
- 3 Lee W, Shah-Desai S, Rho NK, et al. Etiology of Delayed Inflammatory Reaction Induced by Hyaluronic Acid Filler. Archives of Plastic Surgery 2024. doi:10.1055/a-2184-6554
- 4 Lee W. Advances in Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injections. Springer 2024. doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6528-7