Join Maverick Weekly
Evidence-based advice on healthy skin, aesthetic treatments and healthy ageing delivered straight to your inbox.
“Regenerative” has become one of the most commonly used words in aesthetics. You’ll see treatments described as regenerative, biostimulating, cellular, restorative and rejuvenating....
Mel
“Regenerative” has become one of the most commonly used words in aesthetics.
You’ll see treatments described as regenerative, biostimulating, cellular, restorative and rejuvenating — often with impressive claims about repairing or even reversing ageing.
But what does regenerative actually mean, and how much of it is supported by science?
Traditional aesthetic treatments can change the appearance of the face in quite direct ways.
Dermal fillers, for example, can replace or create volume. Botulinum toxin temporarily reduces the activity of selected muscles.
Regenerative approaches are different.
Rather than simply adding volume or altering muscle movement, the aim is to stimulate or support biological processes within the skin itself — such as wound healing, collagen and extracellular-matrix remodelling, hydration and tissue repair.
That distinction matters.
It also doesn’t mean that every treatment marketed as “regenerative” has been proven to regenerate or reverse ageing skin.
Skin isn’t a static structure. Throughout life it is continually repairing and renewing itself.
With age, however, many of these processes become less efficient. Collagen production declines, the extracellular matrix changes, skin becomes thinner and less elastic, and environmental exposures — particularly ultraviolet radiation — accumulate over time.
This is where regenerative aesthetic treatments become interesting.
Instead of asking only:
“How can we make the skin look younger?”
we can also ask:
“How can we encourage the skin to function and remodel more effectively?”
There are several different treatments that may be described as regenerative or biostimulatory, although they don’t all work in the same way.
Microneedling creates controlled microscopic injury to the skin. This triggers the normal wound-healing response and stimulates tissue remodelling and collagen production.
Polynucleotides are injectable products used with the aim of improving skin quality and supporting tissue repair. They are increasingly used for areas such as the face, neck and delicate skin around the eyes.
Injectable skin treatments may work through different mechanisms, including improving hydration or stimulating changes within the extracellular matrix.
Chemical biorevitalisation treatments can also encourage skin renewal and remodelling without necessarily adding volume.
The important point is that “regenerative” is an umbrella term, not a single treatment or mechanism.
This is where I think we need to be careful.
Some regenerative approaches — such as controlled skin injury and collagen induction — have well-established biological mechanisms.
For newer injectable products and combinations, the evidence base varies considerably. Some have encouraging clinical studies and plausible biological mechanisms, while others have limited independent evidence or rely heavily on manufacturer-funded research.
And a plausible mechanism is not the same thing as proof of a meaningful clinical benefit.
That is why I don’t believe in recommending a treatment simply because it is new, fashionable or described as “regenerative”.
The questions should always be:
What does the treatment actually do?
What evidence supports it?
Is it appropriate for this particular patient?
And does the likely benefit justify the cost and risk?
This is perhaps the most important distinction.
We cannot currently reverse biological ageing with an aesthetic treatment.
What we can do is support skin health, stimulate remodelling, improve hydration and texture, protect the skin from further damage and, with appropriately selected treatments, improve some of the visible changes associated with ageing.
That may sound less dramatic than some of the claims made online.
But I’d rather give patients a realistic explanation of what a treatment can achieve than sell them a promise that the science can’t support.
My approach is increasingly focused on skin quality and long-term skin health, rather than simply treating individual lines or adding volume.
That can involve combining appropriate in-clinic treatments with evidence-based skincare, photoprotection and lifestyle factors that influence skin health.
Sometimes an injectable treatment is appropriate.
Sometimes it isn’t.
The important part is assessing the skin first and choosing treatment according to what we’re actually trying to improve — rather than choosing a fashionable product and trying to find a reason to use it.
Regenerative aesthetics is a developing area of aesthetic practice, but developing science still needs critical thinking.
And as the evidence develops, my treatment recommendations will develop with it.
Explore our Regenerative Skin Treatments or discover the Maverick Glow Series, our clinician-led approach to long-term skin health.