Comparing Types of Skin Booster in Daegu — What Is Verified Class by Class, and What Is Not

The conclusion, first

“Which skin booster is the best?” is a question that cannot be put in rank order from the public data as it currently stands. There are three reasons. First, “skin booster” is not a defined term — the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS, the national regulator for food, drugs and medical devices) writes in its press releases “so-called ‘skin boosters’”; the paper that set out to define the term was retracted on the grounds of insufficient peer review and images without attribution; and that paper drew a letter of rebuttal saying that “a name that is already a registered trademark is being used as though it were a generic term.” Second, the largest of the trials pitting the classes against each other, a comparative trial of 218 people, was retracted (a misstatement of the constituents of the product used). The direct comparisons that remain are on the scale of 30 people and 33 people, and in both the difference between the groups was not large. Third, the expert document that put forward a selection algorithm itself wrote that “comparative data are very scarce, so the ranking is based mainly on the panel’s experience and preference” (a panel of 12, funded by manufacturers). So this article compares in a table but does not award places.

Setting seven of them in the same columns

Count how many cells say “we were not able to verify it” and the lie of the land in this field becomes visible. That expression does not mean “it does not exist”; it means we did not reach a primary source. And for human-derived acellular dermal matrix, the heading “approved intended use” does not exist at all — because it is neither a drug nor a medical device but sits on the system of import approval for human tissue. We have written this out separately in what we check when you are looking into Re2O (hADM) in Daegu.

The order we actually work through in consultation

1. We settle the goal before the product name

Even within the same “skin booster,” the side that increases thickness, the side that works on moisture and texture and the side that fills volume are different things. Choosing a product without settling the goal means choosing a name with no scale to compare against. This order we have written out in detail in skin boosters in Daegu: what has to be settled before the product name.

2. We say that things fork even within the same class

Even where the class is the same, a different formulation forks the result. In a trial comparing a formulation containing glycerol with one that did not, within the cross-linked hyaluronic acid class (29 people completed), pore volume differed by 24.2% (p = 0.038). That is, there are cases in which the premise “same class, so much the same” does not hold.

3. We check class by class whether it can be reversed

In this table, the one for which the way of reversing it is certain is cross-linked hyaluronic acid alone. In an experiment on human cadaveric facial arteries, calcium hydroxylapatite did not dissolve with sodium thiosulfate alone, nor with hyaluronidase in combination. For the remaining classes, we could not find a primary trial of any agent for reversing them. So we do not give the explanation that “if it does not work out, it can just be dissolved.”

4. On combinations, we say the evidence is thin

On combinations that use several classes on the same day or in sequence, we could not find a trial directly comparing combinations of multiple classes. That means a combination is a clinical judgement, not a protocol verified by trial. The question of using boosters together with lifting devices we have written about in booster first or lifting first.

5. So this is the order we decide in

(1) We narrow the goal to one of thickness · texture · volume → (2) we put on the candidate list only the classes that have human data for that goal → (3) we tell you the sample size · design · way of reversing it for each candidate → (4) items that have not been verified we say have not been verified → (5) and on top of that we decide together. Price and discounts enter nowhere in this order; costs are explained separately at the consultation.

Five things worth asking at a consultation

These are questions you can ask at any clinic. If the answers are specific and the place says it does not know what it does not know, that helps a judgement.

1. “What is this product’s approved intended use?” — depending on the class, that heading may not exist at all.
2. “How many people is the human data, and was there a control group?” — many of the comparisons have samples in the thirties.
3. “If something goes wrong, is there a way of reversing it?” — the one that is certain is cross-linked hyaluronic acid alone.
4. “Where did the session figure come from?” — whether from the approval documentation, a consensus document or the manufacturer’s copy.
5. “Is there evidence for using them in combination?” — trials directly comparing combinations of multiple classes are hard to find.

What is confirmed / what is inferred / what we could not confirm / material pointing the other way

Where this article was written

• Miso Clinic, Daegu · 4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, Republic of Korea (near Kyungpook National University Hospital station)
• Director Lee Chi-Hak · Tel. 053-428-2700
• This column was written by the director and reviewed in September 2026.

This article was written not to recommend a particular treatment but to set out the extent of the data needed for a decision. Judgement about an individual condition requires examination, and this article does not substitute for medical care. As companion pieces it helps to read collagen boosters in Daegu — what was measured and skin boosters in Daegu: what has to be settled before the product name.

Frequently asked questions

Who wrote this

References

1. The standing of the term — the MFDS press release of 5 January 2023 writes “so-called ‘skin boosters’”. The paper defining the term (Yi KH et al., Skin Research and Technology 2024;30(3):e13627) was retracted (retraction notice 2025;31(11):e70297, grounds = insufficient peer review and images without attribution), and the same journal carried a letter of rebuttal pointing out the registered trademark problem (Martschin C et al., 2024;30(6):e13827).
2. Retraction of the largest comparative trial — the trial comparing PCL against PN at a scale of 218 people (Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 2025;24(1):e16576) was retracted in 2026 on the ground of a misstatement of the constituents of the product used. Fabrication of results was not established.
3. The direct comparisons that remain — Jeong GJ et al., Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 2020;19(7):1593–1599 (PCL against PN, 30 people, no significant difference between the groups). Park JY et al., Skin Research and Technology 2026, DOI 10.1111/srt.70324 (PDLLA against PLLA, 33 people, similar degrees of improvement).
4. The selection algorithm’s own concession — Kerscher M et al., Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 2025;24(Suppl 4):e70359. A panel of 12 · funded by manufacturers. The document itself wrote that “comparative data are very scarce, so the ranking is based mainly on the panel’s experience and preference.”
5. Differences within the same class — Rutnumnoi T et al., Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 2025;24:e70209. 29 people completed. Within the cross-linked hyaluronic acid class, the presence or absence of glycerol produced a 24.2% difference in pore volume (p = 0.038).
6. The state of the comparison of session numbers — three sessions against two for cross-linked hyaluronic acid (NCT02403986, 53 people · 18-month follow-up). On the investigator’s assessment the two-session group was equal or higher at 6, 12 and 15 months, but no between-group statistical test was posted.
7. Ways of reversing — Yankova M et al., Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2021;41(5):NP226–NP236 (calcium hydroxylapatite, human cadaveric facial arteries, dissolution failed both with sodium thiosulfate alone and with hyaluronidase in combination). Wu L, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 2025;24:e70201 (microsphere polycaprolactone, dissolved within five minutes in collagenase alone, not material on use in the body).
8. Human trial of human-derived acellular dermal matrix — Lee YI et al., International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2026;27(5):2193. 20 people · 20 weeks · split-face double-blind, hyaluronic acid control. The primary basis for the number and interval of sessions is registration number NCT07155278 (three sessions at one-month intervals), and the volume injected per session is nowhere to be found.
9. Legislation on medical advertising — Article 56(2) of the Korean Medical Service Act. It prohibits advertising by means of accounts of treatment experience, comparison with other medical institutions, superlative expressions and the like. This is why this column carries no expressions such as “good at” or “the best,” no comparison with other medical institutions, and no prices or discounts.