ReviewJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Regeneration in Aesthetic Medicine: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Clinical Boundaries.
Review in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regenerative Approaches to Enhance the Skin Microenvironment and Boost Aesthetic Efficacy: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Polycaprolactone versus calcium hydroxylapatite injectable treatments in the T-zone for facial rejuvenation: a clinical comparative study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegeneration has emerged as a key concept in aesthetic medicine as the field evolves from predominantly volumetric correction toward biologically oriented strategies aimed at improving tissue quality, function, and long-term structural integrity. However, the widespread use of the term "regenerative" has often been used without biological precision, leading to conceptual overlap with repair, remodeling, and biostimulation. A critical evaluation of the biological basis and clinical evidence supporting regenerative claims is needed.
objectiveTo critically synthesize current biological, translational, and clinical evidence related to skin regeneration in aesthetic medicine, with emphasis on extracellular matrix remodeling, immune modulation, mechanotransduction, and dermal-hypodermal integration, and to contextualize the regenerative potential and limitations of commonly used biomaterials.
methodsA narrative review was conducted based on experimental studies, translational research, narrative and systematic reviews, and clinical investigations cited in the reference set. Evidence was qualitatively analyzed focusing on mechanisms of action, tissue-level interactions, immune responses, extracellular matrix dynamics, involvement of subcutaneous adipose compartments, and durability of clinical outcomes.
resultsCutaneous regeneration is a multilevel functional process driven by coordinated extracellular matrix reorganization, controlled inflammation, mechanotransduction, angiogenesis, and dermal-hypodermal crosstalk. Particulate collagen biostimulators (poly-l-lactic acid, poly-d,l-lactic acid, calcium hydroxyapatite, and polycaprolactone) demonstrate the most consistent evidence for sustained functional remodeling, with poly-l-lactic acid showing the strongest longitudinal and histological support. Hyaluronic acid-based fillers and skinboosters primarily act as microenvironmental modulators with limited regenerative depth. Polydioxanone threads induce localized mechanobiological remodeling that is highly technique dependent. Biological bioregenerators, including polynucleotides, polydeoxyribonucleotides, and extracellular vesicles, show strong mechanistic plausibility but limited and heterogeneous clinical evidence.
conclusionRegeneration in aesthetic medicine should be defined by biological mechanism, functional integration, and durability rather than by transient morphological change. A biologically accountable and evidence-based framework is essential for responsible clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.