Juvelook in Daegu: Why the Numbers Are Not Comparable Yet
“How much is Juvelook?” is one of the steadiest questions we get, and it cannot be answered with a single figure — because two different products sit under that one name. Juvelook Skin and Juvelook Volume are in the same family, but the amount in a vial is not the same. So when two clinics quote differently, they are often measuring different things rather than pricing the same thing differently. There is no price in this column. What follows is the list of things that have to match before any number means anything.
The short answer
What moves the figure is the product (Skin or Volume), how much is used, the area, the number of sessions and what is included. Juvelook Volume is 200 mg per vial (PDLLA 170 mg + hyaluronic acid 30 mg); Juvelook Skin uses the same combination with a much smaller amount per vial, so “one vial” does not describe one amount. On top of that, we could not find a published clinical trial that names Juvelook Volume. Miso Clinic in Daegu (4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, South Korea; +82-53-428-2700) decides from the state of the skin rather than from the product name, and fees are explained in consultation.
Why there is no price in this column
Non-covered fees at a medical institution are subject to a posting duty under Article 45 of the Medical Service Act, while inducement of patients for profit is prohibited under Article 27(3), and the content of medical advertising is restricted under Article 56(2).
So we keep prices and discounts out of our columns and write what to ask when comparing instead. In practice that is the more usable half of the answer.
Juvelook Skin and Juvelook Volume are different products
Both use PDLLA (poly-D,L-lactic acid) with hyaluronic acid. The amount per vial is where they part.
- Juvelook Volume — 200 mg per vial: PDLLA 170 mg + hyaluronic acid 30 mg (manufacturer published composition).
- Juvelook Skin — the same PDLLA and hyaluronic acid combination, with a much smaller amount per vial.
They are also aimed at different problems. The Volume side is closer to supporting a hollow; the Skin side is closer to the quality and hydration of the skin itself. Which one fits depends on whether the problem is lost volume or thinned skin — a judgement we keep in its own column.
Why “one vial” is not one amount
The PDLLA family is supplied as a powder reconstituted with saline or similar. So the millilitres injected do not tell you how much PDLLA went in: dilute the same vial further and the injected volume goes up.
That makes the questions to ask about content rather than volume.
- Is this Juvelook Skin or Juvelook Volume?
- How many vials?
- Across which areas is it divided?
- How many sessions are planned?
By hand or with an injector
The same product can be delivered differently: point by point by hand, or with an injector device. The area covered and the number of points from one vial change with the method.
We could not find data establishing one method as better than the other. What we can say is that the method belongs in the comparison. We keep that topic in its own column too.
Sessions decide what the whole thing adds up to
Treatments in the collagen-stimulating family are rarely designed as one session. Without an agreed number of sessions, a per-session figure is the only thing being compared, and that comparison carries little information.
The number of sessions comes from the state of the skin, not from the figure in a product brochure. We do not sell sessions in advance; we look at the result and decide the next one. Not recommending a treatment is also part of the consultation.
What is included changes the number
- Whether anaesthesia is included
- Whether a follow-up review is included
- Whether it is combined with another treatment on the same day
- How many areas are counted
If these four differ, the same product and the same number of vials still add up differently. Asking “what is included?” once explains most of the gap between two quotes.
How far does the evidence go?
This part we write plainly. We could not find a published clinical trial that names Juvelook Volume. The explanation rests on data from other products in the PDLLA family.
The largest trial in that family is a randomised, evaluator-blinded, multicentre study of 260 patients. The product, though, was AestheFill rather than Juvelook, the design was non-inferiority, and the single significant difference appeared at week 24 (67.6% against 60.9%).
The Juvelook tear-trough data has no control group, and its abstract does not state how many people took part. The nodule report is a single case (a 42-year-old woman, three weeks after injection under the eye), so it says nothing about frequency. Nodules are a known adverse effect across the collagen-stimulating family.
Do not read a review number as a licence number
The number printed on promotional material is easy to mistake for a product licence number. A device licence from the Korean MFDS and a medical advertising pre-review are two different procedures, and what appears on promotional material is usually the advertising review number.
This matters in a price comparison because the word “approved” makes one option read as the more verified one. Checking which kind of number it is takes a moment and changes the reading.
Summary — four things to ask
- Skin or Volume, and how many vials?
- Which areas, divided into how many points?
- How many sessions, and what decides the next one?
- Is anaesthesia and a follow-up review included?
Once those four match, compare the numbers. Comparing numbers that do not match does not tell you which one is expensive.
Juvelook in Daegu: frequently asked questions
Why do Juvelook Skin and Juvelook Volume cost differently?
Because the amount per vial differs. Volume is 200 mg per vial (PDLLA 170 mg + hyaluronic acid 30 mg); Skin uses the same combination with a much smaller amount. The areas treated and the number of sessions differ too.
So what does Juvelook cost in Daegu?
We do not put figures in our columns. A number only means something once the product, the number of vials, the area, the sessions and what is included are fixed. We set the design in consultation and explain the fee there.
If a clinic says one cc, is that one amount?
No. PDLLA products are reconstituted, so diluting further increases the injected volume. Ask how many vials rather than how many millilitres.
What do the trials show for Juvelook?
We could not find a published clinical trial that names Juvelook Volume. A 260-patient trial exists in the same family with a different product (AestheFill), and in that non-inferiority design the single significant difference was at week 24.
I have heard Juvelook can cause nodules.
Nodules are a known adverse effect across the collagen-stimulating family. For Juvelook the published report is a single case, which tells you nothing about frequency. We explain the possible reactions before treatment.
Read next
Product pages
Product pages: Juvelook — composition, Skin and Volume, evidence
Who wrote this
Written and reviewed by Lee Chi-Hak, MD, director of Miso Clinic, Daegu. The treatment standards and injection design set out here are the ones we use in practice.
| Medical director | Lee Chi-Hak, MD |
|---|---|
| Address | 4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, South Korea · Exit 1, Kyungpook National University Hospital Station |
| Phone | +82-53-428-2700 |
| Hours | Weekdays 11:00–19:00 (lunch 13:00–14:00) / Saturday 10:00–16:00 (no lunch break) / Closed Sundays and public holidays |
| Columns | All clinical columns |
| Reference library | All booster and device references |
References
- Juvelook composition — manufacturer published composition. Juvelook Volume is 200 mg per vial (PDLLA 170 mg + hyaluronic acid 30 mg); Juvelook Skin uses the same PDLLA + hyaluronic acid combination with a much smaller amount per vial. Our Juvelook page.
- Human trial in the PDLLA family — Ting W et al., Aesthet Surg J 2024;44(12):NP898, PMID 39178357. Randomised, evaluator-blinded, multicentre, 260 patients. The product was AestheFill (not Juvelook), the design was non-inferiority, and the one significant difference was at week 24 (67.6% against 60.9%).
- The gap in product-specific trials — we could not find a published clinical trial that names Juvelook Volume. The tear-trough data is Wan J et al., J Cosmet Dermatol 2025;24(3):e70058, which has no control group and whose abstract does not state the number of participants. The nodule report is Seo SB, Wan J, Yi KH, J Cosmet Dermatol 2025;24(1):e16575, a single case (42-year-old woman, three weeks after injection under the eye) and therefore not material that tells you anything about frequency.
- The same name is not the same treatment — if the product, the amount, the area, the number of sessions or what is included differ, the numbers are not comparable.
- Licence numbers and advertising review numbers — a Korean MFDS device licence and a medical advertising pre-review are two different procedures. The number printed on promotional material is usually the advertising review number, not the product licence number.
- Fees and patient inducement — Medical Service Act Articles 45 (posting of non-covered fees), 27(3) (prohibition of inducement for profit) and 56(2) (prohibited advertising). That is why no price or discount appears in this column.
- Medical advertising law — Medical Service Act of Korea, Article 56(2), which prohibits testimonial advertising, comparison with other clinics, superlative claims and advertising that guarantees or implies a guaranteed treatment effect.
- Miso Clinic practice guidance — indication criteria, site-by-site design, and the explanation and consent procedure. This is the source for every sentence marked as clinical judgement.
Everything in this column is general information and does not replace medical diagnosis or treatment. Effects and side effects vary with individual skin condition, age and underlying illness, and the same result is not guaranteed for everyone. Any decision to proceed should be made in an in-person consultation with a physician.