It's pretty common knowledge around here that
Bellafill is .8mL a syringe and 20%
PMMA, while Linnea is 1mL per syringe and is either 10% or 30%. However, are gains strictly correlated to absolute volume of
PMMA spheres, or is there more at work?
A lot of people say that Linnea 10% is softer than 30%, but if it's all about the amount of spheres it shouldn't really matter. I suspect that the initial dispersion of the spheres within the carrier gel plays a part in both eventual volume gain and that mythical measurement known as G-Prime. If 10% solution really is softer than 30%, and the spheres are the same size profile, then some amount of the initial dispersion of spheres within the gel carries over into the eventual collagen matrix. I'm not saying it's a one to one correlation, some amount of absorption of the gel takes place before the initial scaffold is formed, but curious what percentage does carry through to the end.
Along those lines, the comparison between
Bellafill and Linnea on a per mL basis may not be Linnea causes 50% more gains because it has 50% more
PMMA per mL. It may be that Linnea only has 20% more gains, but has a higher G-Prime as a finished product indicating a higher concentration of
PMMA spheres within the final collagen matrix. The Bovine collagen carrier in
Bellafill might actually help in this regard by taking longer to reabsorb. This might give the body longer to form the initial scaffold before the carrier reabsorbs, leading to a less dense final product.
Just some thoughts from my Engineering brain.