Dysport Better Than Botox For Crow's Feet
Crow's feet, the fine lines that form around the eyes, are a cosmetic nuisance that comes with aging and the common target of two cosmetic procedures: Botox and Dysport. However, when it comes to which is the best for eliminating these lines, a new study says Dysport is the way to go.
Botox vs Dysport Face-Off
Since its 2002 approval by the FDA Botox, the brand-name for onabotulinumtoxinA has arguably become the most recognized cosmetic procedures for reducing fine facial lines. The medication is made from a protein produced by the bacteria Clostridium botulinum. When injected into the underlying facial muscles the appearance of superficial lines is reduced.
However, as Kleenex is to tissue and Band-Aid is to bandage, Botox is simply a brand-name. In 2009 the FDA approved another botulism-derived medication called Dysport (abobutulinumtoxin A) that has quickly risen to be Botox's biggest competitor.
Researchers from the Maas Clinic in San Francisco and the University of California San Francisco conducted a study to try determine which of these two botulism products has a superior effect on reducing crow's feet.
All 90 participants enrolled in the study received Botox treatment in one side of the face and Dysport on the other. Once the procedure was complete physicians reviewed photos of the results and rated them on a 5 point scale. Patients were also asked to determine which side was preferable to them.
In the study results the researchers found that 67 percent of all the patients preferred the Dysport side and the physicians also found the Dysport appearance to be significantly more favorable. However, these results were only when the patient was contracting their facial muscles as much as possible. No difference was detected while the patient's face was at rest.
"So, we can say that when it comes to addressing the smile lines around the eyes, the crow's feet, at one month the Dysport is more effective than Botox," said Dr. Corey S. Maas, of The Maas Clinic. "And that's a big deal, because Botox is such a recognized household name now. And it's such a great drug. But when you have something that comes in that's as good in some areas, let alone even better, it's big news for all of us, both doctors and patients."
Despite these clear-cut findings the researchers admit that more studies are needed in order to come to a definite conclusion about whether or not there is a real clinical difference between these products. "From our findings, it's clear that there's a better smoothing effect and clearing of lines around the eyes with Dysport. But does that also mean that Dysport is better at achieving the same thing around the mouth or forehead or neck? We really can't make that conclusion,” commented Maas.
The Differences Between the Medications
There are other notable differences between Botox and Dysport including the way that they take affect on the body. According to the website of Dr. Dale Abadir, who specializes in Botox and Dysport in Westchester County New York, Dysport has less botulism protein than Botox and therefore the body forms less antibodies against it. This means that after repeated use there is less of chance to form resistance. Furthermore, Dysport tends to act quicker than Botox, taking only 1 day to take affect rather than 3 and lasts from 6 months to a year as opposed to 3 to 4 months with Botox.
However, Botox has its benefits as well. It is a more concentrated formula which works more efficiently in smaller and tighter spaces and the results are more subtle and sometimes more natural. Dr. Abadir also says that it can be applied to more places including around the lips and nose because it has less of a spread.
The results of the study were published in the Monday edition of the journal Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery.
This page is updated on April 18, 2013.