Polynucleotide injection,
does it really help with Improved periorbital wrinkles and cosmetic skin regeneration?
research showsPolynucleotide injection is rated D for periorbital wrinkles and skin regeneration. This is the one direct periorbital PN-versus-HA split-face trial. It randomized facial sides in 27 women and analyzed all 27. Both masked-physician GAIS and patient VAS were included, but neither differed significantly between PN and non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid; dermal density was also nonsignificant at P=.0986. A single small, short, active-comparator trial does not establish PN-specific efficacy.
ads claimInjection of PN gel can transiently alter local hydration and volume. Expanding that fact into collagen regeneration, durable wrinkle reversal, or restored skin age exceeds placebo-controlled clinical evidence.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- The pivotal study was a 27-person split-face active comparison of PN with non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid.
- verdict 1734, which is C with 55 points, concerns botulinum toxin A; verdict 1754, which is C with 45 points, concerns focused ultrasound; verdict 1755, which is C with 42 points, concerns monopolar radiofrequency; verdict 1645, which is C with 45 points, concerns an LED mask.
What the research actually shows
The one direct periorbital PN-versus-HA split-face trial was Lee's study of 27 Korean women. Facial sides were randomized to three injections with PN or non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid, and all 27 were analyzed. Masked-physician GAIS and patient VAS did not differ significantly, and dermal density was nonsignificant at P=.0986. Some device measures favored PN, but this is mixed endpoints within one trial, not conflict among separate trials. Other PN studies at different sites or with different products mean this wording does not claim that all cosmetic PN evidence consists of one trial.
Why this is classified as D (28)
The profile is P, R1, I1, E0, B2, and C0. One null direct active-comparator trial without precise exclusion gives D with 28 points.
Counterpoint. Positive secondary instrument readings are exploratory and do not override the clinical-assessment failure.
Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Rated the one direct periorbital PN-versus-HA split-face trial with masked-physician GAIS and patient VAS as R1 and E0, with small short active-only B2 design and C0 imprecision
| Endpoint | P | Patient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal |
| Replication | R1 | Single confirmatory trial |
| Independence | I1 | Mixed funding sources |
| Effect size | E0 | Null |
| Precision | C0 | The confidence interval leaves room for benefit |
The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).
Sub-claim grades by effect
This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.
| Effect (sub-claim) | Grade | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical improvement in periorbital wrinkles | D | GAIS and VAS showed no superiority over the active comparator. |
| Improved periorbital elasticity and hydration | C | Some instrument readings were positive secondary outcomes in a small active-controlled study. |
| Increased dermal density | D | The between-side difference failed at P=.0986. |
Cross-check — Codex and Claude
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee YJ et al. 2022 | Randomized double-blind split-face active-controlled trial | 27 | University-hospital investigators in a product-development context; independent public funding unclear | Main GAIS and participant VAS clinical assessments plus instrument measures | No between-side GAIS or VAS difference; dermal density failed at P=.0986. | Pivotal small active-comparator trial |
| Lampridou S et al. 2025 | Systematic review of aesthetic PN studies | 2024 | NIHR doctoral-fellowship support; authors included aesthetic-clinic affiliations | Clinical and instrument outcomes for wrinkles, elasticity, hydration, and roughness | Found heterogeneity in products, sites, techniques, and outcomes, with limited high-quality controlled evidence. | Evidence-landscape assessment |
Receipt — 2 References
All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-24).
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-24 · Corrections: none
Cite this verdict
[Chamgap] Polynucleotide injection x periorbital wrinkle and skin rejuvenation — Evidence Grade D·28. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/antioxidant-aging/polynucleotide-injection-periorbital-wrinkles-rejuvenation/ · CC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.
What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.