Profhilo Overview

Profhilo in Abu Dhabi : An Evidence-Based Overview of Face and Body Bioremodeling

Skin aging is a layered process involving progressive changes in skin structure, hydration, elasticity, density, soft tissue and overall appearance. The 2026 systematic review supplied for this page evaluated Profhilo® and Profhilo® Body across the face, neck, inner arms, abdomen, knees and hands, focusing on skin laxity, hydration, elasticity, density, wrinkles and facial volume-loss scores.

The review included nine clinical studies and 278 participants. Across these studies, Profhilo or Profhilo Body produced statistically significant changes or trends toward improvement in multiple objective and clinical outcomes. The evidence is encouraging, but the review also highlights important limitations: all included studies were single-center, many had small sample sizes, most participants were women, and outcome-measurement methods varied.

Evidence quality at a Glance

Stronger than a single case report because the source is a systematic review, but not equivalent to a large set of randomized controlled trials. Most included evidence came from small, single-center studies, so claims should remain evidence-qualified.

What Is Profhilo?

Profhilo is a hyaluronic-acid product developed with NAHYCO® technology. The review describes the facial formulation as 64 mg of HA in 2 mL, combining high- and low-molecular-weight HA in hybrid cooperative complexes (HCC-HA). Its low viscosity supports broad tissue diffusion.

Unlike classical collagen-stimulating injectables that act partly through an inflammatory foreign-body response, the review characterizes HCC-HA as working through a bioremodeling mechanism that supports extracellular-matrix homeostasis and the viability or metabolism of fibroblasts, keratinocytes, adipocytes and myocytes.

• Supports collagen Types I, III, IV and VII and elastin-related remodeling in mechanistic studies cited by the review
• Designed for broad tissue diffusion rather than focal sculpting
• Targets skin quality, laxity, hydration, elasticity and tissue homeostasis
• Profhilo Body is a separate body-focused formulation reviewed for areas such as inner arms, abdomen, knees and hands

Profhilo vs Conventional Dermal Filler

Feature	Profhilo overview	Conventional volumizing filler
Primary intent	Bioremodeling, hydration, elasticity, laxity and skin quality	Focal volume replacement, projection and contour shaping
Rheology	Low viscosity with broad diffusion	Varies by product; often selected for targeted structural placement
Mechanism emphasized in source	Extracellular-matrix homeostasis / HCC-HA bioremodeling	Physical filling; some products may also stimulate tissue responses
Best search-intent match	Skin quality and mild-to-moderate laxity	Discrete volume deficit or structural contour need

Is Profhilo a filler?

Profhilo is HA-based, but the source positions it primarily as a bioremodeling treatment rather than a conventional structural filler. Patients seeking projection or precise volume replacement may need a different injectable strategy.

What Areas Were Studied?

The systematic review covered both facial and body treatment areas. This makes the overview page useful as a parent hub, while separate service pages can target the intent of each anatomical region.

Area	Product represented	Main outcomes assessed
Malar / submalar face	Profhilo	Hydration, elasticity/viscoelasticity, skin quality, photography and satisfaction
Face	Profhilo	WSRS, FVLS, hydration, plastoelasticity, skin density, photographs and safety
Neck	Profhilo	Laxity, hydration, plastoelasticity, skin density and photography
Inner arms / abdomen / knees	Profhilo Body	Laxity, roughness, hydration, plastoelasticity, density and photographs
Hands	Profhilo Body	Roughness, laxity, density, plastoelasticity, deep hydration and photographs

What the Review Found for the Face

• Malar/submalar studies reported significant improvement in skin hydration and elasticity at multiple follow-up points.
• Facial studies showed trends or significant improvement in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Facial Volume Loss Scale (FVLS) scores.
• A prospective facial study reported significant improvement in several skin-density/roughness parameters at later follow-up.
• Photographic reports described improved turgor, brighter skin, reduced nasolabial fold depth, improved texture and overall appearance.

What the Review Found for the Neck and Body

• Neck studies reported improvement or trends toward improvement in laxity, hydration, plastoelasticity and density.
• Inner arms and abdomen showed significant changes in hydration and several roughness/density parameters.
• Knees were included in body studies and showed improvement in selected laxity or roughness measures.
• Hand studies reported improvement in skin density/roughness and plastoelasticity parameters at follow-up.

Patient-selection insight from the review

For Profhilo Body, one included study emphasized that visible skin laxity and roughness – with or without limited soft-tissue ptosis – are important when selecting patients most likely to match the treatment goal.

Systematic Review Design and Evidence Map

The authors searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Cochrane Skin Specialized Register through February 23, 2024, and also manually searched relevant references. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria.

Review step	Count / detail
Database records identified	38
Manual-search records	7
Duplicates removed	14
Retracted record excluded before screening	1
Records screened	30
Full-text reports assessed	10
Studies included	9
Total participants across included studies	278

Typical Treatment Pattern Represented in the Review

The review only included studies that followed the manufacturer-directed Bio Aesthetic Points (BAP) approach for the relevant facial/body regions, except for hands where a cannula approach could be included. The source notes that the manufacturer recommends two initial sessions 30 days apart, with optional maintenance thereafter.

Patient-Facing Safety Note

Describe the BAP technique as a clinician-performed standardized distribution method. Exact injection coordinates, depth and device technique should remain professional procedural information rather than patient self-treatment instructions.

Evidence by Outcome

Outcome	Overall signal in the systematic review	Representative areas
Skin hydration	All studies measuring hydration reported post-treatment increases; several were statistically significant	Malar/submalar, face, neck, inner arms, abdomen, knees
Elasticity / plastoelasticity	Significant improvements or trends, with variation between measurement methods	Face, neck, inner arms, abdomen, hands
Skin density / roughness	Multiple studies reported significant improvements in PRIMOS-derived parameters	Face, neck, arms, abdomen, knees, hands
Skin laxity	Significant reduction or trend toward reduction at one or more timepoints	Face, neck, arms, abdomen, knees, hands
Wrinkles / facial volume-loss scores	WSRS and FVLS generally improved or trended toward improvement	Face
Photography	Improved turgor, wrinkles, brightness, nasolabial folds, texture and tone described	Face and body studies

Skin Hydration

The review states that every included study measuring hydration found an increase after treatment. Facial studies reported statistically significant improvements in malar/submalar hydration, while neck and body studies documented improvements in superficial or deeper hydration measures at selected follow-up points.

Skin Density and Texture

Several studies used PRIMOS three-dimensional skin measurement to assess roughness and density-related parameters. Significant improvements were reported across the face, neck, inner arms, abdomen, knees and hands at different timepoints.

Wrinkles and Facial Volume-Loss Scores

For facial treatment, the review found a trend toward improvement or statistically significant reduction in mean WSRS and FVLS at one or more follow-up points. These findings support a skin-quality and age-related appearance benefit, but should not be framed as equivalent to structural volumization from conventional fillers.

Safety : What the Review Actually Reported

The included studies mainly reported mild, expected injection-site events. Bruising, edema, temporary pinching sensations, small bumps and localized hematomas were described, and these reactions generally resolved within approximately 72 hours. No serious adverse events or serious device-related adverse events were reported in the studies included in the systematic review.

Patient Satisfaction

Seven studies reported patient satisfaction or self-evaluation, although the questionnaires were not validated. Reported satisfaction varied by study. Across several body/neck/face studies, 64%-94% of participants reported improvements in qualities such as roughness, laxity, suppleness, smoothness or hydration, and 64%-96% reported a lifting effect in selected studies.