Polynucleotides in Brighton & Hove
They do not fill. They signal. A treatment designed to improve how skin looks, feels and behaves.
Polynucleotides are purified DNA fragments injected to support the skin’s natural repair response — particularly where skin looks crepey, fine-lined or fragile.
Evidence is encouraging but still developing. This page explains what the treatment is, what it may improve, how it feels, what to expect, how well it may work, and what the evidence shows.
The first question is what your skin has lost — and whether supporting repair is the right answer.
What it is, what it may change, and what it will not.
Polynucleotides are an injectable skin-quality treatment designed to support the skin’s natural repair processes. They may be considered for thin, crepey or fragile skin — particularly around the eyes — where the aim is gradual improvement in texture, elasticity and fine lines.[1] The published evidence is encouraging but still small in scale and of low-to-moderate quality, so expectations are set accordingly.[1]
- What it is
- An injectable skin-quality treatment intended to support the skin’s own repair signalling — not to add structural volume[1]
- Material
- Highly purified polynucleotides / PDRN, derived from fish (commonly salmon or trout) DNA[7]
- Source & allergy
- Animal-derived (fish). Source, any fish-allergy history and the specific product instructions are checked at assessment; some patients decline on dietary or ethical grounds[3]
- Main role
- Skin quality in thin, crepey or fragile skin — the periorbital area is the best-studied site[4][5]
- What it may do
- Gradually improve crepiness, texture, elasticity and fine lines; in a split-face trial around the eyes, polynucleotides compared favourably with a hyaluronic acid product, and periorbital cohorts report improved patient-rated outcomes[4][5]
- What it cannot do
- Fill a hollow or tear trough, remove eye bags or excess skin, erase pigment-based dark circles, tighten truly lax skin, or produce any change on the day — improvement is gradual and modest, and non-response is possible[1]
- Appointment
- About 30–45 minutes in clinic, including topical numbing; fine, shallow micro-injections
- Comfort
- Brief stings and watering eyes rather than pain; the under-eye is delicate but generally tolerable with numbing[1]
- Initial appearance
- Small papules and swelling at the injection points on the day — the material settling, not the result[1]
- Visible recovery
- Papules, swelling and possible bruising for roughly 24–72 hours, often most visible under the eyes[1]
- Course & onset
- A course rather than one treatment — commonly two to three sessions a few weeks apart, as used in the published protocols; change accrues over weeks[5]
- Meaningful assessment
- Around four to twelve weeks after completing the course, compared against baseline photographs[5]
- Duration & maintenance
- Not reliably established: the available studies are mostly small, uncontrolled and short-term, so how long any gain persists is not known. Maintenance is considered only after review, never automatically[1][6]
- Most common side effects
- Injection-point papules, swelling, tenderness and bruising — expected local effects that settle within a few days. Less common and rare risks are set out in the full clinical guide[1]
- Fee
- £150 for the under-eye area; polynucleotides are planned as a course, and the intended course cost is confirmed before treatment. Full figures are in the fees section
- Age
- Adults 18+ only
The aim is a modest, gradual improvement in skin quality — chosen when the concern genuinely sits in the skin, with the limits and the evidence in full view.
A repair signal — not a volumiser, not a quick fix
Polynucleotides work on the quality of the skin over weeks — its springiness, texture and fine crepiness. They add no volume and change nothing on the day. Where the concern is a hollow, a bag or pigment, this is the wrong instrument.
One point matters before you decide: polynucleotides are regulated in the UK as medical devices rather than medicines, and formulations differ between products. Findings from one product or protocol cannot simply be transferred to another, so evidence should be read product by product.[3]
How it differs from the treatments it is confused with
Overlapping, but not interchangeable.
A hyaluronic-acid skin booster mainly hydrates; PRP and PRF are prepared from your own blood; microneedling is a device-created stimulus rather than an injected material; a biostimulator answers a question about lost structural support, not skin quality.
When another route is the better one
Polynucleotides suit skin quality. Where the real concern is something else, a different route is usually more direct:
A hollow or tear trough, eye bags or excess skin, pigment or dark circles, hydration and glow, texture, pores and fine scarring, lost structural support — each has a more direct route. So does a mild, accepted change: skincare, SPF and no procedure is always a legitimate choice.
Each concern matched to its route — chapter 17
A consultation establishes whether your concern genuinely sits in skin quality — and whether polynucleotides are a reasonable option for it.
These roles overlap and more than one can be reasonable. The choice depends on your skin, the concern, your history and your preferences — including about animal-derived material.
The value of the consultation is knowing whether this treatment can realistically help your skin before you commit to a course.
The recommendation is honest, and the decision is yours.
Full clinical guide
Understanding · Deciding · The studiesTreatment · Safety · Fees · Questions
ContinueThe real detail, when you are ready for it.
For patients who want to understand this properly: what polynucleotides and PDRN are, how a repair signal differs from a filler, what human studies actually show — with their numbers and their weaknesses — who may and may not benefit, the real risks, and when another treatment or nothing is the better answer. It is long on purpose, and it replaces nothing said in a face-to-face assessment. Where I give a personal view, I say so and keep it separate from the evidence.
01 What polynucleotides are
Purified DNA fragments, used as a signal.
Polynucleotides are highly purified chains of DNA fragments, usually derived from salmon or trout. Injected into the skin, they are intended to influence tissue-repair signalling rather than provide structural volume. Because they are animal-derived, the source, your allergy history (including fish allergy) and the exact product’s instructions for use are checked at assessment — and many vegans decline them on principle.
Two related terms appear on products and in studies. PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide) generally refers to shorter, lower-molecular-weight fragments; PN (polynucleotides) generally refers to longer, higher-molecular-weight chains, which are more viscous and thought to act for longer.[7] Terminology and formulations are not standardised, purification differs between products, and — importantly — findings from one product or protocol cannot automatically be transferred to another.
In the UK, polynucleotides are currently regulated as medical devices rather than medicines, and that framework has been described as lagging behind their popularity.[3] Suitability, consent and how the evidence is read therefore need to be specific to the exact product and intended use.
02 How they are proposed to work
Plausible biology — and where the certainty ends.
Keep three levels apart, because they are not equally proven. Biological plausibility: the DNA fragments provide building blocks the skin can salvage, and are proposed to activate the adenosine A2A receptor, calming inflammation and encouraging fibroblasts to work.[7] Preclinical evidence: laboratory and animal work supports anti-inflammatory and repair effects for PDRN — but a receptor mechanism shown for PDRN cannot simply be assumed for every PN formulation. Human clinical outcomes: aesthetic studies report changes in elasticity, texture and wrinkle scores, but protocols, products and measures differ enough that there are no agreed, category-wide dose or interval rules.[1][2]
One more distinction matters. PDRN was originally developed and used as a medicine for wound healing and tissue repair; the aesthetic skin-quality use discussed here is a separate, device-regulated context, and outcomes from wound-healing medicine do not transfer to a cosmetic result.
03 What “skin quality” means here
The springiness and texture of skin — not its volume.
“Skin quality” here means the qualities that make skin look healthy at close range: elasticity (springiness), texture and fine crepiness, hydration and light-reflection. Polynucleotides aim at those. They do not aim at volume, contour, projection or laxity — which are structural questions answered by other treatments or by surgery. When the change you want is about the surface and feel of thin skin rather than its shape, this treatment is at least in the right territory.
04 How they differ from related treatments
Overlapping tools, different jobs.
- Hyaluronic-acid skin booster — mainly hydrates and adds a little dermal water; polynucleotides instead aim to influence the skin’s repair signalling. In the periorbital area, one randomised study found the two broadly comparable on overall aesthetic scores.[4]
- PRP / PRF — uses a preparation spun from your own blood, so it is autologous rather than a manufactured, animal-derived product; helpful if you prefer to avoid fish-derived material.
- Microneedling — a controlled device injury that triggers repair, not an injected material; it can be complementary but works differently.
- Biostimulator — prompts diffuse new collagen to rebuild lost structural support over months; that is a volume/support question, not skin quality.
- HA filler — adds precise volume and shape; the opposite job to a skin-quality treatment.
05 What they may — and may not — change
May help, in the right skin
- Crepiness and elasticity of thin under-eye skin
- Texture and fine wrinkling of face, neck and décolletage skin
- Skin quality where a filler would be the wrong tool
- A regenerative option where hydration alone is not enough, or where you are unsuited to or finished with HA
Will not
- Fill hollows or tear troughs — there is no volume to give
- Remove eye bags (fat or fluid) or excess skin
- Erase pigment-based dark circles or shadow cast by anatomy
- Tighten truly lax skin, act quickly, or guarantee a response in every skin
- Replace SPF, sleep, or treatment of the actual underlying cause
06 “Tired eyes” is several different diagnoses
Treat the diagnosis, not the word.
“Tired under-eyes” is really several separate problems, and only one aligns well with polynucleotides. Crepey, thin skin is the concern most plausibly suited. A true hollow is a volume issue; a puffy bag may be fat or fluid; pigmented darkness is a skin-pigment question; and a skeletal or structural shadow is anatomy. Most under-eyes combine more than one of these, which is exactly why the area is assessed carefully before any course is proposed — and why an honest answer is sometimes that polynucleotides will do little for what is actually bothering you.
07 Who may — and may not — suit
Suitability sits in the skin, not the age.
Often a reasonable fit: genuinely crepey, thinning under-eye or facial skin; skin-quality change where filler is the wrong tool; patience for a gradual course; and acceptance that the evidence is emerging rather than settled and that a response is not guaranteed.
Usually not the right step: hollows, bags or pigment as the real concern; an allergy history incompatible with the chosen product’s instructions for use; vegans who decline animal-derived products; pregnancy or breastfeeding; active infection or inflammatory skin disease in the area; a bleeding tendency needing review; or a need for a visible result by a specific date — this mechanism does not do deadlines.
Age does not decide suitability. The useful question is whether the concern truly sits in skin quality — fine crepiness or thinning — rather than in hollowing, pigment, fluid or excess tissue, and whether the limited evidence and the possibility of no visible change are acceptable to you.
08 When another route — or none — is more appropriate
Often the honest answer is something else.
If the concern is a hollow, volume assessment and possibly filler is more direct; bags or excess skin are an oculoplastic or surgical question; pigment needs a pigment-led or dermatology pathway; hydration and glow may be better served by a skin booster or medical skincare; texture, pores and fine scarring often respond to microneedling, peels or resurfacing; and lost structural support is a biostimulator question, only when appropriate. For mild, accepted change, good skincare, SPF and no procedure is entirely legitimate. Polynucleotides only make sense once the concern genuinely sits in skin quality and the limits are accepted.
09 Consultation & choosing a practitioner
Diagnosis first, product second.
Assessment works out what is actually causing the concern — skin quality, volume, pigment, fluid or structure — and whether polynucleotides address it. It covers medical and allergy history, the specific product and its instructions for use, photographs, the evidence limits, and a realistic objective. Where polynucleotides fit, a course is planned; where they do not, that is said plainly. The under-eye and nose are anatomically sensitive, so it also matters who treats you: it is reasonable to ask about a practitioner’s clinical background, how they select products, and how they manage complications.
Polynucleotides are one of the more interesting recent additions to skin-quality treatment, and I use them — but I try to be honest that the evidence is early and that not every “tired eye” will improve. I would rather tell you that your concern is a hollow or pigment that this treatment will not fix than sell you a course that was never going to work. Where the skin quality is genuinely the problem, it can be a thoughtful option.
10 Preparation, comfort & the appointment
Preparing. Arrive without active infection or irritation in the area; discuss blood-thinning medicines and supplements beforehand; avoid alcohol and vigorous exercise the day before to limit bruising; and if you have an event, leave at least a week, ideally two.
Comfort. The injections are fine and shallow — brief stings, blunted by numbing cream. The under-eye is delicate rather than painful; most people describe pressure and watering eyes more than pain.
The appointment (about 30–45 minutes) involves topical numbing, cleansing, then micro-injections or cannula placement in the planned area, in a series of small deposits. The plan — area and number of sessions — is individual to your assessment and consented before treatment.
11 Immediate appearance & recovery
Immediately afterwards there are usually small papules (little bumps) and some swelling at the injection points, most visible under the eyes, sometimes with bruising. These settle over roughly 24–72 hours. Any early fullness is swelling, not the result. Afterwards: no makeup on the treated area until the next day; avoid sauna, swimming and intense exercise for 24–48 hours; and sleep slightly elevated after under-eye treatment to limit morning swelling. You receive an individual aftercare note, which this summary does not replace.
12 The course, onset & when results appear
A course, judged with patience.
Polynucleotides are planned as a course — commonly two to three sessions at two-to-four-week intervals, adjusted to the product and plan. Nothing meaningful is judged on the day or between sessions; the biological change needs weeks. The honest assessment is made around four to twelve weeks after completing the course, with photographs compared to baseline. In the periorbital studies, patient-reported improvement and satisfaction tended to be greatest around three months after a two-session course.[5]
13 Why results vary; maintenance & reassessment
Variation is genuine — and non-response is possible.
Response varies genuinely between people and skins, and some see little or no visible change. Reasons include the concern not truly being a skin-quality problem, the product or protocol, skin condition and lifestyle, and the simple fact that the evidence base is not yet strong enough to predict individual response. Maintenance is a reassessment decision — commonly considered around six months — never an automatic booking. If a course did not work, an extra session is not assumed to fix it; the honest options are to change treatment family or to stop.
14 Safety & risks
Across the aesthetic studies, reported side effects were mostly mild and transient, but injection into delicate areas is not risk-free. Frequencies are not precisely established across products; the grouping below reflects what the literature and clinical experience describe.
Common — expected & temporary
Injection-point papules & swelling
UsualSmall bumps and swelling at each point, most visible under the eyes; settle over roughly 24–72 hours.[1]
Depends onArea, technique, individual response.
Bruising, redness & tenderness
CommonParticularly under the eyes; usually resolves within days.[1]
Reduced byAvoiding blood-thinners where appropriate, gentle technique.
Less common
Longer-lasting swelling or lumpiness
Less commonOccasionally a papule or area of swelling persists longer; usually settles, sometimes needs review.
Depends onDepth, volume, product, individual healing.
Infection / cold-sore reactivation / pigment change
Less commonInjection can trigger infection, reactivate cold sores, or cause post-inflammatory pigment change in susceptible skin; or simply produce no visible response.
Reduced bySterile technique, aftercare, patient selection.
Rare but important
Allergic reaction
RarePossible with an animal-derived product; assessed against the exact product’s composition and your allergy history.
Act onSpreading rash, lip/tongue swelling or breathing difficulty is an emergency — call 999.
Vascular injury
RareAs with any facial injection, injection into or compression of a vessel is possible; the under-eye and nose are anatomically sensitive regions.
Act onIncreasing pain, white/dusky/mottled or cold skin, or vision change — seek urgent medical help.
Seek urgent help. Increasing pain, skin that turns white, dusky or mottled, a cold area, vision change, or signs of allergy need prompt attention. Spreading rash, swelling of the lips or tongue, or breathing difficulty is an emergency: call 999. Your written aftercare gives the clinic’s urgent contact route.
15 Who should not have it
- Known allergy incompatible with the chosen product, including relevant fish allergy — checked against the instructions for use
- Vegans or others who decline animal-derived (fish) products
- Active infection, inflammation or skin disease in the treatment area
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding
- Bleeding disorders or blood-thinning medication — assessed individually
- A concern that is actually volume, bags, pigment or laxity rather than skin quality
- An inability to accept a gradual, variable and not-yet-fully-proven result, or the possibility of no response
This is not exhaustive; suitability is decided at a full assessment, and I decline treatment where it is not clearly in your interest.
16 Fees
Polynucleotides are planned as a course, so the useful figure is the intended course cost rather than a single session. What you need — if anything — is confirmed before treatment.
Full fees: fees. Any course fee is agreed and confirmed with you before treatment.
17 Alternatives
- Hydration & glow — skin boosters or medical skincare
- Texture, pores & fine scarring — microneedling, peels or resurfacing
- Your own biology — PRP/PRF, if you prefer to avoid animal-derived material
- Lost structural support — collagen biostimulators, only when appropriate
- A hollow or tear trough — dermal fillers, after volume assessment
- Bags, excess skin or pigment — oculoplastic/surgical or dermatology referral
- Mild, accepted change — skincare, SPF and no procedure
18 Questions, answered
Understanding the treatment
What are they actually made from?
Highly purified DNA fragments, usually from salmon or trout. They are intended to influence the skin’s repair signalling rather than to provide structural volume. Because they are animal-derived, composition and allergy guidance are product-specific and are checked against the exact product used.
What is the difference between PN and PDRN?
Both come from the same purified-DNA family. PDRN generally refers to shorter fragments; PN to longer, more viscous chains thought to act for longer.[7] Terminology and formulations are not standardised, so one product’s results do not automatically apply to another.
How are they different from a skin booster, PRP or a biostimulator?
A hyaluronic-acid booster mainly hydrates; polynucleotides aim to influence repair signalling; PRP/PRF uses a preparation from your own blood; and a biostimulator prompts diffuse collagen for lost support. Their roles overlap, and the right choice depends on your skin, the concern, the evidence and your preferences — including about animal-derived material.
Evidence & results
Is this actually proven?
Human studies report improvements in elasticity, hydration, texture and fine wrinkles, and a randomised split-face study found polynucleotides broadly comparable to a hyaluronic-acid booster in the under-eye area.[4] But most studies are small, many are uncontrolled or industry-linked, and a 2025 systematic review graded the evidence low-to-moderate quality with no agreed protocol.[1] Promising direction; limited certainty.
Do they work under the eyes?
They may be considered for crepey, thin under-eye skin, and periorbital studies report improved appearance and satisfaction — usually greatest around three months after a two-session course.[5] Bags, hollows and pigment are separate problems this treatment does not correct.
How many sessions, and when do I judge it?
Typically 2–3 sessions, two to four weeks apart, judged with photographs 4–12 weeks after the course. Maintenance is a reassessment decision — commonly around six months — never automatic.
What if nothing changes?
Non-response is possible and genuine. At review we compare the starting point and decide whether to maintain, change treatment family or stop. An additional session is not assumed to rescue a course that did not work.
Suitability, comfort & safety
Can vegans or people with a fish allergy have them?
The source is usually salmonid DNA, so many vegans decline on principle. Fish allergy and other allergy history must be checked against the exact product’s instructions for use rather than assumed for the category. Alternatives such as PRP/PRF can be discussed.
Does it hurt, and what is the downtime?
Fine, shallow injections — brief stings blunted by numbing cream; most people report pressure and watering eyes rather than pain. Papules and swelling last one to three days, sometimes with bruising, most visible under the eyes; for an event, allow at least a week, ideally two.
Will they fix my dark circles or bags?
No. Bags are fat or fluid; dark circles are usually pigment, vessels or shadow. Polynucleotides address none of those — they help selected crepey, thin skin, which is why diagnosis comes first.
19 The studies
What the human evidence actually shows.
Each card reports what actually happened to patients in a specific study: how many took part, the design, the product and area, the exact measure, how much changed, when, satisfaction where reported, adverse events with numbers, the limitations, and the plain-English meaning. Cards are kept separate by product, indication and design and are not pooled or transferred. Most studies are small and several are uncontrolled or industry-linked — so read the limitations as carefully as the results.
Systematic review · aesthetic skin, mixed products
Taken together, how good is the evidence?
Participants & design
9 studies, 219 treated patients, pooled narratively (Lampridou 2025).
Outcome & how much
Improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity, statistically significant in several studies; no single pooled percentage (studies too varied).
Satisfaction
Reported as moderate-to-high where measured.
Adverse effects
Mild and transient across studies — injection-site swelling, bruising, tenderness.
Limitations
Graded low-to-moderate quality; small cohorts; no consensus on product, dose or interval.
For a patient
The direction is consistently positive, but the quality is not yet strong enough for confident promises.
Certainty & reference
Systematic review of low-quality studies · [1]
Randomised split-face RCT · periorbital · PN vs HA booster
Is it better than a hyaluronic-acid booster under the eyes?
Participants & design
27 subjects, randomised double-blind split-face; PN one side, non-cross-linked HA the other; 3 sessions two weeks apart (Lee 2022).
Outcome & how much
No significant difference between PN and HA on visual-analogue or global aesthetic scores.
Satisfaction / AEs
Both well tolerated; no major adverse events reported.
Limitations
Small (n=27); active-controlled with no untreated arm, so it shows “comparable to HA”, not “better than nothing”; single product.
For a patient
Under the eyes, polynucleotides performed about as well as a standard HA booster — a reasonable option, not a proven leap beyond it.
Certainty & reference
Small RCT, no placebo arm — low–moderate · [4]
Prospective observational · periorbital · FACE-Q
Do patients feel their under-eyes look better, and for how long?
Participants & design
42 patients, prospective observational; absorbable PN, validated FACE-Q at baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months (Ziade 2026).
Outcome & how much
Significant improvement in lower-eyelid and crow’s-feet FACE-Q appraisal at every follow-up versus baseline (p<0.001).
Onset / satisfaction
Greatest improvement and highest satisfaction at 3 months after two sessions, sustained at 6 months.
Adverse effects
Reported as minimal; no delayed adverse events on follow-up.
Limitations
Observational, no control group; single product; patient-reported outcome only; not powered to compare 2 vs 3 sessions.
For a patient
Patients consistently felt their under-eyes looked better, peaking at ~3 months — encouraging, but without a control we cannot fully separate treatment from expectation.
Certainty & reference
Uncontrolled observational — low · [5]
Real-world PMCF · PN-HPT · face, neck & décolletage
In routine practice, how many see visible improvement?
Participants & design
106 questionnaires (47 face, 33 neck, 26 décolletage), real-world post-market data; clinician GAIS/GCI-S + patient report, assessed 3 months after final injection.
Outcome & how much
Visible improvement in 100% of facial treatments (53.5% “marked” or “excellent”); >93% neck and >88% décolletage showed moderate-to-significant improvement.
Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction 97–100%.
Adverse effects
No serious adverse events reported.
Limitations
Real-world, no control; clinician- and self-reported; questionnaire-based; industry framework — prone to optimistic reporting.
For a patient
Real-world satisfaction is high, but “100% visible improvement” from uncontrolled self-report is a soft outcome, not proof of efficacy.
Certainty & reference
Uncontrolled real-world — low · [6]
The overall picture: a plausible mechanism, consistent signals of improved skin quality, and generally mild reported side effects — set against small, mostly uncontrolled or industry-linked studies with no agreed protocol.[1][2] What is not established: that any specific durable percentage applies to you; that results transfer between products; that it helps hollows, bags or pigment; or that “preventive” use in young skin is worthwhile. Emerging uses such as scalp/hair (small comparative case series) and other dermatological indications are early and not offered here as proven. This is why the page informs rather than encourages, and why diagnosis comes first.
20 References
Systematic reviews, randomised and observational clinical studies, and mechanistic/regulatory sources, each labelled by type. Preclinical and mechanistic findings are not presented as established human benefit; product-specific results are not transferable. Access date 23 July 2026.
View 7 sources
- Systematic review (9 studies, 219 patients; low–moderate quality): Lampridou S, et al. (2025) ‘The effectiveness of polynucleotides in aesthetic medicine: a systematic review’, J Cosmet Dermatol, 24(2), e16721. Available at: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845969/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Systematic review (regenerative/aesthetic; small cohorts, industry involvement): (2024) ‘Points to ponder on the role of polynucleotides in regenerative and aesthetic medicine: a systematic review’, Eur J Plast Surg. Available at: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00238-024-02209-x (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Regulatory status & guidance (device regulation, category critique): (2025) ‘A literature review on polynucleotide efficacy on skin rejuvenation, and the regulatory status and guidelines around polynucleotides’, Journal of Aesthetic Nursing. Available at: magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/joan.2025.0009 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Randomised double-blind split-face RCT (periorbital, PN vs HA, n=27): Lee YJ, Kim HT, Lee YJ, et al. (2022) ‘Comparison of the effects of polynucleotide and hyaluronic acid fillers on periocular rejuvenation: a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial’, J Dermatolog Treat, 33(1), pp. 254–260. Available at: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546634.2020.1748857 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Prospective observational (periorbital, FACE-Q, n=42; uncontrolled): Ziade G, et al. (2026) ‘Prospective observational study of polynucleotide injections for periorbital rhytides’, J Cosmet Dermatol. Available at: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12905022/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Real-world post-market cohort (PN-HPT; face/neck/décolletage; n=106 questionnaires; uncontrolled): (2026) ‘A real-life assessment of injectable polynucleotides high purification technology in aesthetic medicine for skin rejuvenation’. Available at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41482668/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Mechanism review (A2A receptor; material properties): (2025) ‘Polydeoxyribonucleotides as emerging therapeutics for skin diseases’, Applied Sciences, 15(19), 10437. Available at: mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/19/10437 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
This page is general information about a medical procedure — not individual medical advice, a recommendation, or an inducement to treatment. Suitability is decided only after a face-to-face assessment and a result is never guaranteed.
Written and clinically reviewed by
MPharm · Pharmacist Independent Prescriber · MSc Cosmetic & Aesthetic Medicine · PGDip Dermatology in Clinical Practice
First the diagnosis. Then — perhaps — the signal.
Whether polynucleotides suit your skin — or whether a skin booster, another approach or no procedure is more appropriate — is decided by assessment. Bring the concern; I will tell you honestly what is causing it and what can realistically change.
