How long does Rejuran last? Injection bumps and how it differs from Rituo

Evidence and details

What the approval record says

Rejuran is approved as a medical device, not a drug, so its record is in the MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). A search for “리쥬란” on September 15, 2026 returns two records. The approval document quotes in this article come from one of them: the approval record for approval no. 제허14-825호 (제허 = domestic manufacture, 수허 = import) and two attached documents (the directions for use and the precautions for use).

Item	What it says
Company	PharmaResearch ((주)파마리서치)
Approval no.	제허14-825호 (2014-04-09)
Category	Tissue repair biomaterial (the MFDS device category), Class 4
Intended use (the approved use)	Used to temporarily improve facial wrinkles in adults
Product names in the same approval	리쥬란, 리쥬란 아이, 리쥬란 에스, Rejuran, Rejuran i, Rejuran s
Ingredient (as written in the contraindications)	Sodium polynucleotide
Amount injected	Varies with the area treated (no fixed amount)
Contraindications (cases where the product must not be used)	Areas with non-resorbable filler or recent filler · Patients receiving NSAIDs, antiplatelet drugs, anticoagulants, immunosuppressants and similar drugs · Patients with allergic conditions, autoimmune diseases, sarcoid granulomatous conditions or Osler’s endocarditis · Hypersensitivity to sodium polynucleotide · Injection into a blood vessel · Damaged skin, such as skin with inflammation or infection · Pregnant women, breastfeeding women, minors
Cases where safety has not been established	Lip augmentation · Patients prone to keloids, hyperpigmentation or hypertrophic scars (thick raised scars)
Herpes	Patients who have had herpetic eruptions may have a recurrence after injection
Checked	2026-09-15

In the remarks field of the record, “technical document review” is marked and “clinical data review” is blank.

The precautions end with the sentence “safety and efficacy for long-term use beyond the period established through clinical studies have not been confirmed.” The directions and precautions do not say which clinical studies these are or how long the period is, and neither document gives a number of sessions or how long the effect lasts. Descriptions such as regeneration or skin barrier, written in one clinic brochure, are not in the intended use either.

What the names Rejuran i and Rejuran s mean

Rejuran i and Rejuran s are product names included under the same approval number as basic Rejuran. The model name field of the approval record also lists the export names (REJURAN i, REJURAN s), and the intended use is the same. The “i” in the name (리쥬란 아이 in Korean, read like “eye”) comes with no sentence about the eye area in the directions and precautions.

The directions and precautions contain no sentence that differs by product, and we did not read the attached document on raw materials and performance. The two studies cited in this article (the 10-participant face study and the 8-participant cheek study) describe Rejuran as a clear liquid containing 20 mg of polynucleotide per 1 mL.

The other record from the same search is “리쥬란 SBC” (Rejuran SBC, 제허26-180호), approved on March 6, 2026. The product combines sodium hyaluronate and sodium polynucleotide, and its intended use is temporary improvement of fine wrinkles at the outer corners of the eyes in adults. The remarks field, however, says “for export only.”

Clinic materials also show names such as “Rejuran Healer,” “Rejuran HB” and “Rejuran HB+.” These names are not among the product names in the two approval records above, and we could not confirm which approval they fall under. Confirming the product name in a quote or consultation is what makes it possible to compare the same thing.

Why the two largest trials were retracted

Among the Rejuran comparison trials we found in PubMed, the two with the most participants (72 and 218) were both retracted. Both trials treated wrinkles around the eyes by injecting Rejuran and another filler into opposite sides of the face.

The 72-participant trial used Rejuran as the test product. According to the retraction notice, the manufacturer funded the trial, and one member of the research team was a researcher at the company’s research institute. The paper stated that there were no conflicts of interest and gave a government support program as the funding source.

The publications board of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (대한의학회) concluded that the conflict-of-interest disclosure and the funding statement were incorrect, and the paper was retracted. The research team’s affiliations listed the company, and the researcher representing the paper explained that the integrity of the research was not affected.

The 218-participant trial used a polycaprolactone filler as the test product and Rejuran as the comparison product. DexLevo, the maker of that filler, funded the study. According to the retraction notice, the paper was retracted at the research team’s request, because the team had misidentified the material of the test product, which made the results unreliable.

Neither notice judged Rejuran’s effect separately; both retracted the whole paper.

What the studies that were not retracted reported

Among Rejuran studies that were not retracted, every one that assessed effects on the face had 30 or fewer participants. We did not find a trial that compared Rejuran with saline injection or no treatment and assessed appearance such as wrinkles or pores, nor a study that followed participants for more than 12 weeks after the last treatment. On September 15, 2026, we searched PubMed for Rejuran and polynucleotide together with terms such as facial wrinkles and pores.

Study	Participants	Compared with	Reported result	Funding and interests
10-participant face study	10 Korean people, face	Rejuran injected with a needle on one side and with a jet device on the other	Needle side: no change in pore and wrinkle readings after 2 weeks	Declared no conflicts of interest; PharmaResearch supplied the product
8-participant cheek study	8 healthy people, cheeks	Saline	A water retention index changed only on the Rejuran side; appearance not assessed	Declared no conflicts of interest
30-participant eye-area trial	30 people, wrinkles around the eyes	Polycaprolactone filler (against the “RJR” side)	No difference in wrinkle scores after 12 weeks	Not stated in the PubMed record
27-participant eye-area trial	27 people, eye area	Non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid (product name not confirmed)	No difference in overall scores; some device readings higher on the polynucleotide side	We could not confirm
15-participant eye-area trial	15 people, eye area	Rejuran i against another company’s polynucleotide	Pain score: Rejuran i 5.04, other product 3.39; no difference in wrinkle scores	Funded by the competitor BR PHARM
20-participant acne scar trial	20 women, acne scars	Saline (the product was PN-HPT, not Rejuran)	Only the 10 who received PN-HPT improved from before treatment	We could not confirm

The 10-participant face study injected Rejuran into one side of the face of 10 Korean people with a fine needle at intervals of about 1 cm, and delivered it to the other side with a needle-free jet device. Which side got which method was decided at random, like drawing lots. Measured with a skin imaging device 2 weeks after treatment, the needle side showed no difference from before treatment: the pore index went from 54.8 to 55.3 and the wrinkle index from 25.7 to 26.8. On the jet device side, the pore index fell from 54.3 to 46.2 and the wrinkle index from 25 to 17.7.

The study summary said both sides improved from before treatment, but the needle-side figures in the table in the full paper showed no clear difference. The study compared two injection methods and did not compare Rejuran with an untreated side. The research team named the small number of participants and the follow-up of only 2 weeks as limitations. The team declared no conflicts of interest, and the acknowledgments said PharmaResearch supplied Rejuran.

The 8-participant cheek study injected saline into the left cheek of 8 healthy people and Rejuran into the other cheek. After 2 weeks the team measured physical properties of the skin such as electrical conductance and elasticity. According to the team, a water retention index calculated from these values changed only on the Rejuran side. Appearance, such as wrinkles or pores, was not assessed. Saline always went into the left cheek, and the paper does not say that the side was decided at random. The team declared no conflicts of interest.

The 30-participant eye-area trial injected a polycaprolactone filler into one side and a polynucleotide filler called “RJR” into the other side in 30 people with wrinkles around the eyes, and compared them after 12 weeks. Wrinkle scores and overall improvement scores showed no clear difference between the two sides. Wrinkle scores improved in 14 of 29 people on the polycaprolactone side and in 12 of 29 people on the RJR side.

The study summary gives only the abbreviation “RJR.” The 218-participant trial (the retracted paper above), which shares one researcher with this trial, identified RJR as Rejuran, but we could not confirm from the full paper whether the RJR in this trial is the same product. The funding and conflict-of-interest fields in the PubMed record are empty.

The 27-participant eye-area trial injected a polynucleotide filler around one eye and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid around the other, three times at 2-week intervals. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and overall improvement scores showed no clear difference between the two sides. The trial reported higher improvement rates on the polynucleotide side for some device-measured readings, such as skin elasticity and pore volume.

The study summary does not name the product. The table in the analysis below, which pooled several studies, lists this trial’s product as Rejuran and its follow-up as 28 weeks, but we could not confirm either point from the full paper of the trial.

The 15-participant eye-area trial injected Rejuran i around one eye and another polynucleotide filler from BR PHARM around the other, four times at 2-week intervals. The main comparison was injection pain. Pain scores out of 10 were 3.39 for the BR PHARM product and 5.04 for Rejuran i. The trial reported that wrinkle scores and improvement scores improved on both sides up to 12 weeks after the last treatment, with no difference between the sides. BR PHARM, which makes the competing product, paid for the trial.

Another company’s polynucleotide has been compared with saline in a trial. Of 20 women with acne scars, 10 received PN-HPT, which is not Rejuran, and 10 received saline, 4 mL each. The trial reported improvement from before treatment at 1 month and 3 months only for the 10 who received PN-HPT, and the study summary gives no figures comparing the two groups directly.

An analysis that pooled 9 polynucleotide studies (219 participants) summarized that wrinkle and skin texture measures improved in some studies and that side effects were mostly mild and temporary. The same analysis said that the quality of the studies was low to moderate and that more high-quality studies are needed to reach firm conclusions.

This analysis includes the retracted 72-participant trial. One author is a member of the R&D steering committee of Mastelli, a polynucleotide product company, and another is a doctor who handles clinical training for that product’s distributor. The paper stated that the two companies were not involved in the study and that no funding was received from them.

What the studies linked to the manufacturer reported

Several recent papers on Rejuran and polynucleotide injections disclose a relationship with the manufacturer, PharmaResearch. Few data are available to check whether studies unrelated to the manufacturer found the same results. The Rejuran studies that declared no relationship with PharmaResearch, or show no such disclosure, are the 8-participant cheek study and the 30-participant eye-area trial. The 8-participant cheek study did not assess appearance, and for the 30-participant eye-area trial we could not confirm from the full paper that the product was Rejuran. For the three papers below, we checked funding and conflicts of interest in the full text.

A 6-patient study that looked back at treatment records injected Rejuran into 6 people whose faces had become sunken after steroid-containing fat-dissolving injections. In doctors’ ratings based on photos, 3 recovered almost completely and 3 improved considerably, and the study reported no treatment-related adverse reactions. There was no comparison group. PharmaResearch funded the study, and two of the authors are PharmaResearch advisers.

Case reports describe what happened to one person or a few people, so they do not show how often something happens. The intended use in the Rejuran approval record, checked on September 15, 2026, does not include areas sunken after fat-dissolving injections, so this result was observed outside the approved intended use.

In a survey of 235 dermatologists, doctors who said they use polynucleotide injections named fine wrinkles on the cheeks as the area they treat most, followed by fine wrinkles under the eyes. The answers also showed that three sessions at 4-week intervals were the most commonly recommended. The survey asked doctors how they perform the procedure and did not measure results, and PharmaResearch paid for it.

An expert opinion paper wrote that there have been no reports of complications such as granulomas or vascular occlusion after polynucleotide injections. The same paper said that this opinion was based mainly on clinical experience and selected literature, and that more studies such as comparison trials are needed. Four of the authors are PharmaResearch advisers and two are PharmaResearch employees.

How it differs from other products

How it differs from Juvelook and mulgwang injections

The difference starts with the ingredients in the approval records. Rejuran’s precautions list its ingredient as sodium polynucleotide, and the intended use of Juvelook (제허17-972호) describes it as a product that delivers polylactide and hyaluronic acid. Among products called skin boosters, the three approval records we checked (the Restylane Skinboosters Vital line and SKINVIVE by Juvederm) are for products that inject cross-linked hyaluronic acid (molecules bonded to each other). The intended use in these records does not contain the word “물광.”

We did not find a study that compared Rejuran with Juvelook directly in people. In the 27-participant eye-area trial, which split polynucleotide and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid between the two eye areas, overall improvement scores did not differ, and some device-measured readings improved more on the polynucleotide side.

How it differs from Rituo

A product-name search for Rituo in the MFDS device database and the MFDS drug database (Nedrug, 의약품안전나라) on September 27, 2026 returns it neither as a medical device nor as a drug. We did not find an MFDS item record for Rituo that states an approval number, class and intended use, as Rejuran’s record does.

In a news article, the manufacturer L&C Bio described Rituo as a product classified as human tissue, not as a medical device. In another article, an MFDS official, without naming Rituo, said that ECM (extracellular matrix) skin boosters made by turning acellular allogeneic dermis into powder count as human tissue. According to the company, Rituo is a material made by removing the cells from donated human skin (dermis) and turning it into powder, and the tissue is obtained from donors overseas. According to the articles, Humedix handles sales.

Item	Rejuran	Rituo
MFDS item record	Yes (제허14-825호, Class 4 medical device)	0 results in the device and drug searches; no human tissue item record found
Applicable law	The Medical Devices Act (의료기기법)	The Act on the Safety and Management of Human Tissue (인체조직안전 및 관리 등에 관한 법률) (news articles quoting the company; not confirmed through an item record)
Material	Sodium polynucleotide (as written in the precautions)	Acellular allogeneic dermis made from donated human skin (company description)
Company	PharmaResearch ((주)파마리서치)	Made by L&C Bio, sold by Humedix (news articles)
Checked	2026-09-15	2026-09-27

Humedix also separately reported 3 functional cosmetics under the Rituo name that are applied to the skin (엘라비에리투오이씨엠 ampoule · cream · BB).

Whether Rejuran ampoules and creams are the same as the injection

Ampoules, creams and masks under the Rejuran name are not injectables but functional cosmetics that PharmaResearch reported to the MFDS. On September 27, 2026, the functional cosmetics report list in the MFDS drug database returned 113 entries for the product name “리쥬란,” and for all of them PharmaResearch is the responsible seller (the company that reports the product to the MFDS). For all 4 we opened (Turnover Ampoule, Healer Turnover Ampoule Dual Effect, Turnover Mask and Healing Cream), the stated effect is “helps improve skin wrinkles”; one also states “helps whiten the skin,” and the directions are to apply the product to the skin. Some cosmetics, such as “리쥬란시너지스킨부스터” (Rejuran Synergy Skin Booster), have the words “skin booster” in their names.

In the full ingredient lists of 4 products checked on PharmaResearch’s official online store (Turnover Ampoule, Dual Effect Ampoule, Nutritive Cream and Skin Protection Mask), the DNA ingredient is written as “hydrolyzed DNA,” and the ingredient listed as the functional ingredient for wrinkle improvement is a different one, such as adenosine. The listed ingredient of the Rejuran injection is sodium polynucleotide, so the names on the ingredient lists differ, and we could not confirm whether the two names refer to the same raw material.

The Cosmetics Act (화장품법) defines cosmetics as products applied, rubbed or sprayed on the body that have “a mild effect on the human body.” The Rejuran injection is a medical device that the MFDS approved as Class 4 under the Medical Devices Act (의료기기법). The name is the same, but the law that applies, the way the product is used and the names on the ingredient lists differ.

What side effects have been reported

According to Rejuran’s precautions for use, applying pressure to the injection site can cause inflammation (redness, swelling, erythema) together with itching or pain, lasting about 1 week. Nodules (lumps) or hardening at the injection site, discoloration at the injection site and lack of treatment effect are also in the list of side effects. The precautions tell doctors to inform patients to see a doctor as soon as possible if inflammation lasts for more than 1 week or a side effect different from the known ones appears.

The contraindications say not to inject into blood vessels, and the general precautions say to avoid use in vessels where a blockage could cause tissue death.

In the 10-participant face study, everyone had mild redness and two people had bruising on the needle side, and these cleared on their own within 1 week. The 15-participant eye-area trial, paid for by the competitor BR PHARM, reported in its study summary raised bumps at the injection points (embossing) in 56.7% of treatments on the Rejuran i side. Neither the approval documents nor these studies say how many days the bumps last.

In this search we did not find case reports of granulomas or vascular occlusion after Rejuran or polynucleotide injections, nor a large study or post-marketing surveillance that measured how often side effects occur. The two trials whose side effects are described above followed 10 people for 2 weeks and 15 people for up to 12 weeks after the last treatment. The authors of the expert opinion paper that wrote there were no reports of granulomas or vascular occlusion include PharmaResearch advisers and employees.

What the documents say to be careful about after treatment

The table below gives the guidance in the approval documents submitted by the manufacturer, not results of comparison trials in people. The guidance may differ by product and procedure. Check the actual instructions with the medical staff who treated you.

Item	What the approval documents say
Massage	Massage the treated area after injection so the product spreads evenly (guidance for the procedure itself; the documents do not say whether patients should do this at home)
Makeup	Avoid for 12 hours after injection
Sun and temperature	Avoid prolonged exposure to sun, UV light, cold or heat (sauna, steam room and similar) for 2 weeks
Lasting inflammation	If it lasts for more than 1 week, or a side effect different from the known ones appears, see a doctor as soon as possible

We have not published prices yet

We publish a price range only after we have collected at least 3 publicly posted prices for the same conditions. For Rejuran we have 1 so far, from one clinic brochure. The directions for use say only that the amount injected depends on the area treated and set no fixed amount. When you look at quotes, check that the product name, the amount and the number of sessions are the same, so that you compare the same conditions.

What we have not confirmed yet

Related pages

• Rejuran i and Juvelook Eye under the eyes (in Korean)
• Rituo (in Korean)
• Juvelook Skin and Juvelook Volume (in Korean)
• Skin boosters and mulgwang injections
• Precautions after filler and botulinum toxin (in Korean)
• Guide to types of skin procedures (in Korean)

---

Sources

• Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (식품의약품안전처), MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). 조직수복용생체재료 [tissue repair biomaterial], (주)파마리서치 [PharmaResearch], 제허14-825호, approval date 2014-04-09. Approval record and attached documents (사용방법 [directions for use] · 사용 시 주의사항 [precautions for use]). Korean originals of the quoted text: 사용목적 “성인의 안면부 주름을 일시적으로 개선하기 위해 사용” · 비고 “기술문서 심사”, “임상자료 심사” · 금기 “Oslers 내막염” (spelled this way in the document; written as Osler’s endocarditis in the text) · 주의사항 “임상연구를 통하여 밝혀진 기간 이외의 장기간 사용에 대한 안전성, 유효성은 확인 되지 않았다”. Checked 2026-09-15
• MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). 제허17-972호 (주)바임 쥬베룩 [Juvelook], 수허12-702호 · 수허12-703호 갈더마코리아(주) [Galderma Korea] Restylane Skinboosters Vital, 수허18-134호 한국애브비(주) [AbbVie Korea] SKINVIVE by Juvederm. Intended use in the search list. Checked 2026-09-15
• MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방). 조직 수복용 생체 재료 [tissue repair biomaterial], (주)파마리서치 [PharmaResearch], 제허26-180호 리쥬란 SBC, approval date 2026-03-06, 수출용에 한함 [for export only]. Intended use and remarks in the search list. Checked 2026-09-15
• MFDS medical device database (의료기기안심책방) · MFDS drug database (Nedrug, 의약품안전나라). Product-name search for “리투오” [Rituo]: 0 medical devices · 0 drugs. Checked 2026-09-27
• MFDS drug database (의약품안전나라), 기능성화장품제품정보(보고) [functional cosmetics product information, reported]. Product name “리쥬란”: 113 entries, responsible seller (화장품책임판매업자) (주)파마리서치 [PharmaResearch]. Details opened: report no. 2023018821 리쥬란턴오버앰플 · 2023019011 리쥬란힐러턴오버앰플듀얼이펙트 · 2023018114 리쥬란턴오버마스크 · 2020007971 리쥬란힐링크림 (효능효과 [stated effect] · 용법용량 [directions]). Korean originals of the quoted text: “피부의 주름개선에 도움을 준다” · “피부의 미백에 도움을 준다”. Checked 2026-09-27
• MFDS drug database (의약품안전나라), 기능성화장품제품정보(보고) [functional cosmetics product information, reported]. Report no. 2026002513 엘라비에리투오이씨엠액티브앰플 and 2 others, (주)휴메딕스 [Humedix]. Checked 2026-09-27
• 리쥬란 코스메틱 공식 온라인몰 [Rejuran Cosmetics official online store] (rejurancosmetics.co.kr). Full ingredient tables on the product pages for 턴오버 앰플 · 듀얼 이펙트 앰플 · 뉴트리티브 크림 · 스킨 프로텍션 마스크 [Turnover Ampoule · Dual Effect Ampoule · Nutritive Cream · Skin Protection Mask]. Korean original of the quoted ingredient name: “하이드롤라이즈드디엔에이”. Checked 2026-09-27
• Korean Law Information Center (국가법령정보센터). The Cosmetics Act (화장품법) Article 2 [in force 2026-04-02], the Medical Devices Act (의료기기법) Articles 2 · 3 [in force 2027-03-16, articles amended 2018-12-11], the Act on the Safety and Management of Human Tissue (인체조직안전 및 관리 등에 관한 법률) Articles 1 · 3 [in force 2024-03-19]. Korean original of the quoted text: “인체에 대한 작용이 경미한 것”. Checked 2026-09-27
• 이데일리 [Edaily] 2026-04-06 「”ECM 스킨부스터 의료기기 아닌 인체조직”…식약처, 규제 예고」 [MFDS: “ECM skin boosters are human tissue, not medical devices,” regulation planned] · 이투데이 [Etoday] 2026-04-29 「엘앤씨바이오, ECM 스킨부스터 ‘리투오’ 논란 해명…”법·기준 준수”」 [L&C Bio responds to the controversy over its ECM skin booster Rituo: “complied with laws and standards”] · 머니투데이 [Money Today] 2026-09-21 「기증된 시체서 나온 피부조직, 미용 시술에 쓰였나…관리 사각지대」 [Was skin tissue from donated bodies used in cosmetic procedures? A gap in oversight]. Statements by an MFDS official and the company as quoted in news articles, not MFDS records. Checked 2026-09-27
• Pak CS, Lee J, Lee H, et al. A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Matched-Pairs, Active-Controlled Clinical Trial and Preclinical Animal Study to Compare the Durability, Efficacy and Safety between Polynucleotide Filler and Hyaluronic Acid Filler in the Correction of Crow’s Feet: A New Concept of Regenerative Filler. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29 Suppl 3:S201-9. PMID 25473210 · retracted (PMID 26839493) · retraction notice full text checked · the 72-participant trial in this article
• Choi SY, Koh YG, Yoo KH, et al. A Randomized, Participant- and Evaluator-Blinded, Matched-Pair, Prospective Study Comparing the Safety and Efficacy Between Polycaprolactone and Polynucleotide Fillers in the Correction of Crow’s Feet. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(1):e16576. PMID 39313949 · retracted (PMID 41834780) · retraction notice full text checked · funded by DexLevo · the 218-participant trial in this article
• Hong JY, Lee YH, Kim HJ, Park KY. Therapeutic Performance of Needle Injection Versus Needle-Free Jet Injector System for Polynucleotide Filler in Skin Rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(1):e16595. PMID 39370844 · full text checked · PharmaResearch supplied the product · the 10-participant face study in this article
• Kim JH, Choi WS. Water Retention Ability of the Dermis Following Polynucleotide Intradermal Injection Using a Water Distribution Model: Pilot Study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(12):e70537. PMID 41307165 · full text checked · the 8-participant cheek study in this article
• Jeong GJ, Ahn GR, Park SJ, Hong JY, Kim BJ. A randomized, patient/evaluator-blinded, split-face study to compare the efficacy and safety of polycaprolactone and polynucleotide fillers in the correction of crow’s feet. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19(7):1593-1599. PMID 31680395 · abstract only · product written as RJR in the abstract · the 30-participant eye-area trial in this article
• Lee YJ, Kim HT, Lee YJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of polynucleotide and hyaluronic acid fillers on periocular rejuvenation: a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707 · abstract only · no product name in the abstract · the 27-participant eye-area trial in this article
• Lampridou S, Bassett S, Cavallini M, Christopoulos G. The Effectiveness of Polynucleotides in Esthetic Medicine: A Systematic Review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(2):e16721. PMID 39645667 · full text checked · authors include a member of Mastelli’s R&D steering committee · a clinical training instructor for the distributor · the analysis that pooled several studies in this article
• Jeon W, Park M, Kim SW, Kim J. Efficacy of Ionization-Adjusted PN Filler in Minimizing Injection Pain: A Randomized, Patient-Blinded, Split-Face Study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50(7):2723-2730. PMID 41361144 · full text checked · Rejuran i was the comparison product · funded by BR PHARM · the 15-participant eye-area trial in this article
• Araco A, Araco F. Preliminary Prospective and Randomized Study of Highly Purified Polynucleotide vs Placebo in Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acne Scars. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(7):NP866-NP874. PMID 33755110 · abstract only · product PN-HPT · the 20-participant acne scar trial in this article
• Park SM, Oh SM, Oh M, Lee DK. Efficacy of Polynucleotide for the Recovery of Depressed Lesions Following Steroid-Based Lipolysis Injections. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2026;19:603237. PMID 42266763 · full text checked · funded by PharmaResearch · two authors are advisers · the 6-patient study in this article
• Rho NK, Han KH, Cho M, Kim HS. A survey on the cosmetic use of injectable polynucleotide: The pattern of practice among Korean Dermatologists. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024;23(4):1243-1252. PMID 38093498 · abstract only · funded by PharmaResearch · the survey of 235 dermatologists in this article
• Rho NK, Chilukuri S, Chan G, et al. Expert Perspectives: Evidence-Based Applications of Polynucleotides (PNs) in Aesthetic Medicine and Dermatology. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2026;19:557226. PMID 41939258 · full text checked · authors include PharmaResearch advisers and employees · the expert opinion paper in this article

Written by SKINMODU 2026-09-16 · Approval record checked 2026-09-15 · Studies checked 2026-09-16 · Reviewed 2026-09-16 (Opus · Codex · Gemini · Fable) · Wording re-reviewed 2026-09-18 (Codex · Gemini · Fable) · Rituo and cosmetics records checked 2026-09-27 · No prices collected yet · Rebuilt in the new layout 2026-09-27 · 2 cross-reviews 2026-09-27 (Codex · Gemini) · Final edit by Fable · English edition 2026-10-04, translated from the Korean page as of 2026-09-27