Journal of

Hyaluronic acid (HA), the main and most important constituent of extracellular matrix, is a glycosaminologycan with water-absorbing capacity found in large amount in growing and repairing tissues. One of the main causes of skin problems, particulary in aging skin, is HA deficiency. More than half of the body HA is in the skin and is necessary for the maintenance of internal matrix and several cellular functions. Filler gels containing HA are used to repair skin defects. As these substances are derived from animals and bacteria, not the human, may cause skin reactions and have short half-life. So efforts to maintain and/or increase HA secretion from skin fibroblasts are important in the prevention and treatment of skin aging.

Background and aim: As the use of botulinum toxin to treat glabellar lines increases, particularly in Iran, where foreign products (e.g. Dysport) are relatively expensive, it becomes important to compare the efficacy, side effects, and duration of action of two locally produced botulinum toxin brands, Masport® and Dyston®. This study seeks to assess and compare the treatment results of these two medications.
 

Methods: In this cross-sectional, descriptive, retrospective study, the medical records of 81 patients who visited Razi Dermatology Hospital for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines were reviewed. Data related to patient satisfaction, duration of action, and side effects of Masport® and Dyston® botulinum toxin were collected and analyzed via a questionnaire.
 

Results: The mean satisfaction score was 7 for the Dyston® group and 7.7 for the Masport® group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=0.142). Additionally, the mean duration of action was 3.5 months for Dyston® and 3.8 months for Masport®, with no significant difference observed. Headache was the most common side effect reported, with no other major adverse events noted. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side effects between the two groups.
 

Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that both Dyston® and Masport® have similar efficacy and safety profiles. The choice between them can be primarily based on cost and patient or physician preference rather than any significant therapeutic differences. Larger studies are recommended to further validate these findings.