Skin boosters compared: Rejuran, Juvelook or Rituo?

The main criterion is not volume, but how a product improves skin quality.

While filler adds volume, skin boosters divide small amounts among multiple points in the superficial skin, or dermis, to improve hydration, texture, and elasticity.

What is commonly called a water-glow injection is a representative example.

In consultation, I explain skin boosters by their main ingredient categories.

These include hyaluronic acid-centered hydrating products, salmon-derived PN products such as Rejuran, PDLLA-containing collagen-stimulating products such as Juvelook, and hADM products such as Re2O.

Although names may sound similar, their actions on skin and response speeds differ.

Hyaluronic acid products strongly attract moisture into skin, so many people report hydration and radiance immediately afterward.

They are also reported to stimulate dermal cells and support collagen production, so some residual stimulation is understood to persist after the hydrating ingredient is absorbed.

Rejuran is based on salmon-derived PN, while Juvelook contains PDLLA and hyaluronic acid. They support improvements in skin condition through different mechanisms.

Even within the same group, formulation and concentration differ. We distinguish cases prioritizing texture, such as scars and pores, from those prioritizing overall regeneration.

Re2O is a human acellular dermal matrix (hADM) tissue product, rather than simply a hyaluronic acid-based hydration product.

The starting point is identifying the priority among your concerns.

If immediate hydration and radiance are urgent, hyaluronic acid products tend to feel faster. If acne scars or overall texture recovery are the goal, salmon-derived products are often considered first.

We decide after assessing skin thickness, pores, and recent treatment history together.

Many patients also seek improved elasticity, but I explain in advance that evidence for elasticity measures across skin boosters remains less clear.

If elasticity is the main goal, considering other treatments in combination is more realistic than relying on a skin booster alone.

A common recommendation is 3 sessions at 3–4-week intervals, followed by maintenance every 4–6 months.

Some feel hydration after the first session, but visible changes in texture or scars usually develop gradually over repeated sessions.

Studies report improvements in hydration and radiance relatively consistently, while findings for elasticity vary between studies.

I therefore do not state that elasticity will definitely improve; we adjust goals with individual variation in mind.

Bruising, swelling, and temporary small raised bumps are common immediately afterward and usually settle naturally within 2 weeks.

Rare persistent firm nodules have been reported when excessive amounts are injected superficially, making volume and depth control important.

Very rare vascular problems have also been reported. Rather than assuming skin boosters are automatically safe, it is safer to seek treatment from clinicians with anatomical expertise.

For procedures using salmon-derived ingredients, any history of allergic reactions to fish or shellfish should be discussed in advance during consultation.

I tend to recommend skin boosters when cosmetics and basic care no longer seem to improve hydration or texture, or when scars and pore texture call for continued regenerative stimulation.

These patients often notice a relatively clear difference when treatment begins with ingredients matched to their goals.

Conversely, if sagging or contour change is the primary concern, skin boosters alone have limits; lifting or volume treatments may be more appropriate.

I also acknowledge that clinics may have an incentive to recommend skin boosters to increase treatment uptake. In consultation, we choose a direction considering both goals and budget.