#21

@RapAdmin I own the Ez Injector and only used it once. You can take it off my hands for the cost of shipping — got a bunch of replaceable parts. It’s NOT as you think though. I posted about my Ez Injector misadventure in the other thread. The problem is that with it you can only inject at 90 degree angle, and it’s not just about the depth but the angle is probably even more important. For skin boosters or hyperdilute Radiesse you need to inject at 15 degrees or so, very shallow. You would get lumps and granulomas if you inject perpendicularly. I stopped worrying about the depth with DEP and got spectacular results. It stands to reason as radiesse can generate new tissue at every depth so it’s not as if it’s creating problems by going too deep. The question is whether it is getting spread evenly or not and DEP assures that it does.

For reference, my experience with the Ez Injector / Ez Gun: The mTOR rebound effect has been kind to my skin? - #122 by medaura

p.p.s. I think it would work great with something like PRP but none of the synthetic products I can think of wanting to inject would be absorbed without complications in that way — through the mini bumps.

3 Likes
#22

Did you ask what the model’s assumptions of the inputs in the COGS approximation are? Obviously a piece of electronic equipment is not built in a vacuum — the cost of labor varies from country to country, region to region. You also assume, or the model seems to assume, prototyping and building a machine from scratch, whereas the most likely explanation is that there’s a big factory in China contracted out to Mattioli to build those machines for them for a tiny fraction of what they’d cost to produce in Italy. They have the whole technology stack already ingested from Mattioli, so no need to reinvent the wheel and prototype. And they’re just cheating by selling it on the side to whomever asks for it. For all we know the marginal cost of labor for one more unit produced is almost literally zero:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/12/why-western-executives-visit-china-coming-back-terrified/

I can tell you from personal use that the product does have a skin impedance sensor that works, because the gauge changes every time I add more product to the skin, so it “knows,” by somehow measuring the impedance on the spot. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. You can spend $200 and find out if it’s actually driving any product into your skin. My first try was with Hyaron, a lightly cross linked hyaluronic acid skin booster, that can act as a light short term filler if injected deep. I rubbed it around and drove it in with the DEP and at first I couldn’t tell what was going on, whether it was going in or simply evaporating, but as soon as I smiled I could tell I looked different— and not for the better— with chipmunk-like cheeks around the smile folds. It was a bit terrifying and took days to subside, after using a barrage of heat based treatments to help metabolize it. It was my “holy shit” moment.

#23

Ok from further reading it seems that I was wrong and Mattioli does not and claims to never have outsourced production to China. That doesn’t prevent the Chinese from reverse engineering their technology especially as it’s spelled out in its patents. The prototyping costs of reinventing the wheel may be steep, but they’re one time upfront outlays. The marginal cost of pumping out more of these machines are likely quite negligible in a country so vastly industrialized and geared towards mass production, now further moving into massive automation.

I’m no fan of the Chinese at all, to be clear. Rather terrified of them when I see first hand what a deep moat of technological advancement they have. It’s the nature of knowledge that it becomes a positive externality in the world. Yes we have a copyright & patent system in the West to incentivize innovation by granting inventors a temporary monopoly over the gains of their ideas. But along comes a third party that doesn’t play by those rules and cannibalizes others’ ideas. What can you do about it? Look who invented the atomic bomb, what kind of caliber of minds were brought together for the Manhattan project. And once it’s done, you get Stalin copying it, and these days the insane mullahs would if they could, and the lunatic in North Korea already has.

2 Likes
#24

All of what you are saying can be accurate, but I’m still very skeptical that we would likely get the same level of performance from a $200 device, as compared to a $15,000+ device (even given the crazy margins that you can get on patented medical devices).

I’m not saying that the Chinese device does not provide good value for the money, and may still do an entirely satisfactory “job” at what it is doing… I just doubt that it can drive the solutions down into the skin to the same depth and efficiency that the much more expensive product does.

For $200, if it provides any benefit for even a short period of time, it may still be a good deal.

1 Like
#25

You might be right. I do have the counterfeit Radiesse — nanohydroxyapatite — and it works great. But now I’m curious if the original product might work even better. Since the difference in price is maybe $100-200, I am willing to try, just to see what I’m leaving on the table by going counterfeit. Whereas with the device itself, whatever extra effectiveness or efficiency there may be to the original device’s functionality, there’s such rapidly diminishing marginal returns that I don’t care to know at all what I’m missing. I can tell about 70% of the volume of whatever solution I use gets absorbed into my skin. Perhaps the original DEP device would make it so 100% of the product does but that’s hardly worth $19,000 to me when I can just wait to use more product later on. If I needed it to drive chemotherapy solutions etc. past the skin and accuracy were paramount, then I wouldn’t mess around with a product disavowed by the branded manufacturer. Since I just want to make my skin look better and I can already tell by looking in the mirror that it’s working great, I’m only too happy to be getting these results for pennies on the dollar.

Honestly I’m happier to spend more for the original Pfizer sirolimus from Turkey, which I have, rather than get the Zydus from India. But imagine if I were to buy the original Pfizer sirolimus in the U.S. out of pocket, and compare that to the Zydus in India. Even with the concerns re: good manufacturing practices in most FDA approved Indian pharma outfits, the Indian Zydus is much more worthwhile to the biohacker than the U.S. Pfizer Sirolimus. If I needed it as a kidney transplant recipient, I’d sing a different tune though.

2 Likes
#26

I was checking into this product a bit. Also reading people’s experiences on Reddit (DIY Cosmetic) and they sometimes use the device with a single needle (Luer lock connector) for control of the quantity delivered. this would be without the “suction” feature obviously. Perhaps you could also use a 3 pin needle arrangement (again, without the suction).

And of course you’d need to use a larger needle for delivery of the Radiesse formulations due to the microspheres.

1 Like
#27

I ordered the DEP device from China on October 8th from this company that @medaura had suggested. It arrived today.

Given the low cost, I thought it would be interesting to check out. at some point I may take it apart just to see what’s inside, and decide whether it actually is a true electroporation device, or if its something else (I’m always a little skeptical about these things…). I like the concept of a skin electroporation device… easy to use, no needles, etc.

No extra duty, so not sure what was going on - perhaps just included in the “shipping fee”. It just got dropped on my doorstep while I was out.

Screenshot 2025-10-21 at 5.10.42 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-21 at 5.10.42 PM932×916 41.4 KB

4 Likes
#28

I just wouldn’t dare use anything other than DEP for Radiesse as I lack the injection technique. Watched webinars where they go into great detail on the angle, linear retrograde technique, and the need to not inject at all close to the needle entry point as it might result in granuloma. Besides I’d need to massage it 5x a day and I don’t have the time. With the DEP it’s one and done, with a bit of product wastage.

What do you see inside the machine after taking it apart?

2 Likes
#29

I followed you into this. Purchased from same Chinese source. Device for me was 191.00. Got confused about the ordering. I’ll add it to topical estriol, topical rapa, Mayo clinic’s plated, and more expensive peptides.I cant remember the names of, micro-needling and a vitamin C spray device. Sometimes a collagen peptide drink. Too chicken to inject anything. Don’t go to spas and haven’t had fillers because I don’t want to get hooked on the up keep processes and costs. Oh- And renova and.on prescription carac now for Ak’s. Never used sunscreen until recently -isdin photo50.

1 Like
#30

Researching a little on what types of topical solutions work with the DEP devices:

Prompt:

what are all the skin serums or liquids are used with the MATTIOLI ENGINEERING Dermoelectroporation system?

CGPT5 Response

Short answer: there isn’t a single public, exhaustive “catalog” of Mattioli-branded ampoules. What Mattioli publishes instead is the compatibility rule for the DEP/Transderm system and a few concrete examples used in their own case reports and marketing. Here’s the full picture, with sources.

What the DEP/Transderm system is cleared to deliver

  • Formulation type: aqueous, ionizable (ionic) drug solutions; the device is FDA-cleared as an alternative to injections for the “local administration of ionic drug solutions.” Oil-based products, non-ionizable actives, and highly viscous suspensions don’t fit this definition. (mattioliengineering.com)
  • Molecular size: Mattioli highlights that macromolecules (e.g., hyaluronic acid)—typically not deliverable by traditional iontophoresis—are deliverable with Dermoelectroporation®. (mattioliengineering.com)

Examples actually used or named with Mattioli DEP

These are ingredients/serums shown in Mattioli’s own materials or in distributor/clinical reports about DEP. (Formulations are water-based unless noted.)

  • Hyaluronic acid (non-cross-linked, aqueous): repeatedly cited by Mattioli as a flagship macromolecule for DEP delivery, and used in their published case reports. (mattioliengineering.com)
  • Oligopeptides / peptide cocktails (with HA gel vehicle): used in an 8-session facial protocol delivered via Ultrapeel® Transderm® Ionto Meso® (DEP platform). (Sensus Healthcare)
  • Vitamins / amino acids (e.g., Vitamin C), anti-inflammatories, heparin (all ionic when correctly formulated): listed by a Mattioli DEP distributor as typical classes DEP can deliver. (Regulatory status/claims vary by country.) (broadwaybeauty.co.uk)
  • General “ionic drug solutions” for medical purposes (broad category per labeling): pain/inflammation meds and other ionizable actives in aqueous solution. (mattioliengineering.com)

What Mattioli’s technology literature says (mechanism constraints)

  • DEP is an “electroporation-like” pulsed current method that opens water-based skin channels for ionizedcompounds; performance depends on the skin’s electrical impedance and solution conductivity/pH (so your serum needs to be water-based and appropriately buffered/ionized). (mattioliengineering.com)

Practical inclusion / exclusion checklist (derived from the above)

Suitable (when water-based and ionizable):

  • Hyaluronic acid solutions (non-cross-linked), peptide serums, Vitamin C (ascorbate), amino acids, certain anti-inflammatories and analgesics, and similar ionic aqueous drugs/cosmeceuticals that meet viscosity/conductivity requirements. (mattioliengineering.com)

Avoid / not indicated:

  • Oil or silicone-based serums, emulsions with poor conductivity, cross-linked fillers (too viscous; not aqueous ionic), particulate suspensions, and non-ionizable actives (they don’t meet the “ionic solution” requirement in the clearance/labeling). (mattioliengineering.com)

Bottom line

  • Mattioli does not publish a public, comprehensive list of “all serums” for DEP. Instead, the firm and its partners document classes of water-based, ionizable solutions (and showcase hyaluronic acid and peptide cocktails most often). If you’re evaluating a specific product, check: (1) water-based, (2) ionizable at working pH, (3) appropriate viscosity/conductivity, (4) regulatory/label intent in your market. (mattioliengineering.com)

If you want, tell me the exact serums you’re considering and I’ll screen each one against the DEP criteria (ionization, conductivity, viscosity, pH) and flag any red- or green-lights.

1 Like
#31

Do all water-based liquid skin treatment solutions contain ions?

The short answer is: no, not all water-based skin solutions automatically contain ions.

:white_check_mark: 4. How to tell if a formula is ionic

You can often tell by reading the ingredients list:

  • Look for ionic words: “sodium,” “potassium,” “chloride,” “ascorbate,” “phosphate,” “acetate,” “citrate,” etc.
  • Check the pH: if it’s strongly acidic (<5) or basic (>8), it likely has ions.
  • If the serum feels slightly conductive (tingling with microcurrent), it probably has electrolytes.

:brain: Summary

Type Example Ionic? Conductive? Suitable for electroporation?
Pure water Distilled water Barely Very low No
Salt solution NaCl in water Yes High Yes
Vitamin C serum (ascorbic acid) Water, ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate Yes Moderate-high Yes
Glycerin-based humectant Water, glycerin, propanediol No Very low No
Hyaluronic acid (sodium form) Water, sodium hyaluronate Yes Moderate Yes
1 Like
#32

More on this topic:

Prompt: Would Hyperdilute Radiesse be considered an ionic solution?

CGPT5 Response:

Great follow-up — and it’s a subtle but important distinction.

:warning: Even “hyper-dilute” Radiesse is not an ionic solution in the true electrical or electroporation sense.
It remains a non-ionic, weakly conductive suspension, even when mixed heavily with saline or lidocaine.

Let’s break down why :point_down:

:test_tube: What “hyper-dilute Radiesse” actually is

  • Clinically, “hyper-dilution” means mixing Radiesse (CaHA microsphere filler) with saline (NaCl) and often lidocaine to reduce viscosity and allow superficial, biostimulatory injection.

  • Typical ratios:

    • 1:1 → “dilute”
    • 1:2 to 1:6 or even 1:10 → “hyper-dilute”

So you’re adding an ionic component (saline) to an essentially non-ionic base (Radiesse gel + microspheres).

:zap: Why it still isn’t a true ionic solution

  1. Radiesse remains a suspension — even when diluted, it still contains undissolved CaHA microspheres in a CMC gel.

    • Those particles don’t ionize; they stay solid.

  2. Saline only makes part of the mixture ionic.

    • The Na⁺ and Cl⁻ in saline increase conductivity somewhat, but the overall mixture is dominated by the viscous, insulating gel.

  3. Electrical current still can’t flow freely because the gel and particles interrupt ion mobility.

    • Conductivity is orders of magnitude lower than in a true aqueous ionic solution.

The result is more like a partially conductive slurry, not a uniformly ionic liquid.

:gear: Implications for electroporation / iontophoresis

  • DEP or iontophoresis devices rely on a uniform ionic path for microcurrents.
  • Hyper-dilute Radiesse would create inconsistent conductivity, cause localized current spikes, and could damage the device electrodes or burn skin.
  • Clinically, it’s still used by injection, not via energy-based transdermal delivery.

:white_check_mark: Better ionic substitutes for similar goals

If your aim is collagen stimulation or dermal biostimulation via electroporation, use:

  • Sodium-hyaluronate serums (ionic, water-based)
  • Peptide cocktails with charged amino acids
  • Vitamin C (ascorbate) or mineral complexes
  • Polynucleotide or Nucleofill-type aqueous formulations (these are ionic and DEP-compatible)

These maintain true ionic conductivity and mimic some of the biostimulatory signaling that Radiesse provides without the particulate carrier.

Summary table:

Formulation Contains free ions? Uniformly conductive? Suitable for electroporation?
Pure Radiesse :x: No :x: No :x: No
Hyper-dilute Radiesse (Radiesse + saline) :warning: Partially :warning: Weak :x: No
Saline / HA / peptide serums :white_check_mark: Yes :white_check_mark: Yes :white_check_mark: Yes

So, in plain language:

Even when diluted, Radiesse isn’t a true ionic solution — it’s a mostly non-conductive gel with some saline mixed in. Fine for injection, but not for any electrical or electroporation-based transdermal use.

Would you like me to list specific ionic, DEP-compatible “Radiesse-like” alternatives that stimulate collagen safely (peptide, calcium, or polynucleotide based)?

Yes

Perfect — here’s a curated list of ionic, water-based, electroporation-compatible serums that can approximate the biostimulatory and collagen-inducing effects of Radiesse (without any particulate filler or injection).

Each of these has charged (ionic) actives and aqueous conductivity, making them compatible with Mattioli Dermoelectroporation (DEP), iontophoresis, or no-needle mesotherapy systems.

:zap: CATEGORY 1 — Peptide-Based Collagen Stimulators

These serums mimic Radiesse’s fibroblast-stimulation through bioactive peptides rather than calcium microspheres.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Medik8 Copper PCA Peptides Copper PCA, Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Cu²⁺, PCA⁻ are ionic Copper ions stimulate fibroblast activity and superoxide dismutase enzymes; peptides increase collagen synthesis
Dermaheal HSR / SR solutions SH-Oligopeptides, Sodium Hyaluronate Peptides have charged amino acids Growth-factor-mimetic peptides promote collagen and ECM renewal
Aquashine BR / BTX Biomimetic peptides, Hyaluronic acid (Na⁺ form) Fully ionic Enhances dermal matrix, elasticity, and tone
Toskani Mesolift Cocktail DMAE, Sodium Pyruvate, Vitamins, Amino acids Multiple ionic actives Increases skin firmness and collagen cross-linking

:white_check_mark: Best suited for electroporation because they’re fully water-based and ionically conductive.

:alembic: CATEGORY 2 — Polynucleotide / Nucleic Acid Solutions

These stimulate fibroblast proliferation and tissue regeneration, like Radiesse’s biostimulatory phase.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Nucleofill Strong / Medium (by Promoitalia) Polynucleotides (sodium DNA fragments) Sodium salts → highly ionic Triggers fibroblast activation, antioxidant signaling, dermal remodeling
Plinest / Newest DNA-based polynucleotides Na⁺ salts Stimulates ECM synthesis and hydration
RRS HA Injectable or Meso Sodium Hyaluronate + Nucleotides Ionic ECM hydration + cell turnover support

:bulb: Nucleotides are strongly anionic molecules — perfect for electroporation conductivity.

:dna: CATEGORY 3 — Mineral & Calcium Signaling Formulations

These emulate the Ca²⁺-mediated fibroblast signaling that Radiesse’s CaHA provides, but in ionic (dissolved) form.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Mesotech Calcium Gluconate Solution Calcium Gluconate Ca²⁺ ionic salt Mimics CaHA’s calcium signaling to fibroblasts
Toskani Calcium Chloride Solution Calcium Chloride Strongly ionic Enhances keratinocyte-fibroblast crosstalk
Mesoline Tight (MD Skin Solutions) DMAE, Minerals (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Zn²⁺), HA Ionic mineral blend Improves dermal firmness and tone

:warning: These are the closest “ionic analogs” to hyperdilute Radiesse, but safe for DEP use.

:sweat_drops: CATEGORY 4 — Ionic Hyaluronic Acid Boosters

Non-crosslinked, sodium-form HA remains the base carrier of choice for electroporation.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Teoxane RHA Serum Sodium Hyaluronate, Amino acids Ionic Hydration, dermal density
Mesoestetic HA Densimatrix Sodium Hyaluronate, Silanol, Peptides Ionic Deep hydration, collagen synthesis
Institute BCN Hyaluronic Acid 2% Sodium Hyaluronate Na⁺ salt Conductive hydration base for DEP infusion

:gear: Recommended “DIY” DEP Blend (safe, conductive base)

For professional-grade electroporation facials:

  • Base: 2–3% Sodium Hyaluronate (ionic, low-viscosity form)
  • Additives: 1% Calcium Gluconate + 0.5% DMAE + Peptide cocktail (e.g. Acetyl Hexapeptide-8)
  • pH: 6.0–7.0 (conductive, skin-safe)
  • Solvent: Deionized water or saline

This yields a fully ionic, biostimulatory serum that’s safe for electroporation — unlike Radiesse, which remains particulate.

:compass: Summary

Type Conductivity Collagen Stimulus DEP Compatibility
Radiesse (CaHA) :x: Non-ionic :white_check_mark: Strong (by injection) :x: Not compatible
Hyper-dilute Radiesse :warning: Weakly ionic :white_check_mark: Moderate :x: Not compatible
Peptide / PN / Ca²⁺ Ionic Serums :white_check_mark: Strongly ionic :white_check_mark: Moderate–Strong :white_check_mark: Excellent

Would you like me to create a table comparing these Radiesse-like ionic serums by price per ml, conductivity, and clinical evidence strength? That’s useful if you’re choosing the most cost-effective one for DEP sessions.

Yes

Here’s a comparison table of some ionic-serum alternatives (that approximate the biostimulatory/“filler-like” effect) including approximate price per unit, conductivity suitability, and strength of clinical support. These can help you evaluate options for use with a DEP/electroporation-type system rather than a particulate filler like Radiesse.

Product Price* Conductivity / Ionic Suitability† Collagen-Stimulus / Evidence Strength Notes
Medicube PDRN Pink Peptide Serum ~ US $18 for 30 ml High (PDRN = polynucleotide + water base) Moderate — PDRN offers DNA fragment regenerative signal Excellent value, good entry option
The Ordinary Multi‑Peptide + HA Serum ~ US $19.90 for 30 ml High (peptides + sodium hyaluronate) Moderate — peptides trigger collagen signalling (Dermstore) Low cost, widely available
Paula’s Choice Pro‑Collagen Multi‑Peptide Booster ~ US $44.25 for standard size High Moderate-High — premium peptides plus HA Mid-tier cost, good brand reputation
Natuderma Exosomes Microneedling Mesotherapy Serum ~ US $148 for ~5 vials ×5 ml High (polynucleotides + exosomes + HA) (dermishop.com) High — advanced regenerative tech Higher cost, very “clinic-grade”
Plinest Fast (Polynucleotide) ~ US $89 for 2 ml (specialized) High High — targeted at skin quality, stretch marks & laxity Smaller volume, higher per-ml cost
BCN Tensis Peptides Mesotherapy Vials ~ US $79 for box of 5 vials ×5 ml (≈ US $79/25ml) High Moderate-High — peptide & firming focus (dermishop.com) Good value for mesotherapy vials

*Prices approximate at time of search; actual cost may vary by vendor / region
†“Conductivity / Ionic Suitability” is an estimate based on being aqueous, containing ionic/charged actives (peptides, polynucleotides, Na⁺/HA salts) and thus potentially compatible with electroporation-type delivery (given correct formulation, pH, viscosity).

Key Observations & Insights

  • Lower-cost peptide serums (US $18–45) are very accessible and great for frequent use; good for maintenance.
  • Mid-to-high cost mesotherapy vials (US $80–150+) are more “professional grade”, often for clinic use, and may yield stronger “collagen-stimulus” effects.
  • Volume matters: for example Plinest is high cost because of small volume & specialized use; cost per ml is substantially higher than a retail 30 ml peptide serum.
  • None of the above contains particulate filler (like CaHA microspheres) so they behave as true ionic/water-based solutions (i.e., suitable for the DEP/iontophoresis style delivery) rather than injection fillers.

How to pick based on your goals

  • Budget / frequent use: Go with a peptide-HA serum (e.g., The Ordinary, Paula’s Choice) — cost effective and good for maintenance.
  • Clinic-level upgrade: Use polynucleotide/mesotherapy vials (e.g., Plinest, Natuderma Exosomes) for stronger regenerative effect.
  • Volume vs cost trade-off: Check cost per ml. For example, a US $79 box containing 25 ml (BCN Tensis) is ~ US $3.16/ml; whereas Plinest at US $89 for 2 ml is ~US $44.50/ml.
  • Ensure compatibility with DEP system: Confirm the formulation is aqueous, includes ionic salts (e.g., sodium hyaluronate, polynucleotides, peptides with charged residues), and has appropriate viscosity/conductivity.

If you like, I can expand the table to 12–15 products, include cost per ml, conductivity rating (qualitative), and filter by professional vs consumer use (clinic vials vs retail serums). Would you like that?

1 Like
#33

Prompt:

Can you rank these ionic-serum alternatives by demonstrated clinical efficacy, as determined by effect size or similar metrics?

GPT5 Response:

Got it. Here’s a science-first ranking of the ionic, DEP-compatible alternatives by demonstrated clinical efficacy (favoring human randomized/controlled data and reported effect sizes where available). I rank ingredient classes (since brand-specific RCTs are rare), then note example products you mentioned that fit each class.

Ranked by clinical signal (highest → lowest)

  1. Polynucleotides (PN, incl. PDRN)
  • Evidence: Multiple human trials and recent reviews report significant improvements in wrinkle depth, elasticity, and hydration; some head-to-head data vs. non-cross-linked HA favors PN for crow’s feet. Most data are injectable; transdermal delivery is biologically plausible but less directly studied. (JKMS)
  • Representative numbers (directional): Trials commonly show statistically significant wrinkle/elasticity gains; one paired, randomized trial in 72 pts favored PN over HA for periorbital lines (crow’s feet). (JKMS)
  • Your matching picks: Nucleofill, Plinest/Newest, RRS HA + nucleotides, Plinest Fast.
  1. Copper peptide (GHK-Cu) & advanced peptide complexes
  • Evidence: RCTs and controlled studies (topical) show improved skin density/thickness, reduced wrinkle depth/volume, and better overall appearance. One trial reported ~56% reduction in wrinkle volume and ~33% reduction in wrinkle depth vs. control at 8–12 weeks (vehicle-controlled; specific formulation). (PMC)
  • Acetyl hexapeptide-8 (Argireline): Double-blind trials show modest but significant crow’s-feet improvement vs. placebo; systematic/clinical reviews in 2023–2025 support reductions in wrinkle scores (generally small-to-moderate effects). (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Medik8 Copper PCA Peptides; The Ordinary Multi-Peptide + HA; Paula’s Choice Pro-Collagen Booster; BCN Tensis; Toskani Mesolift (peptide-rich).
  1. Topical Hyaluronic Acid (sodium hyaluronate) serums
  • Evidence: Strong, consistent hydration gains; anti-wrinkle effect is secondary and smaller than PN/peptides. One serum study reported ~55% hydration increase by corneometry; broader reviews affirm hydration/skin-quality benefits. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Teoxane RHA Serum; Mesoestetic HA Densimatrix; Institute BCN HA 2%.
  1. DMAE (ionic solutions with DMAE)
  • Evidence: Mixed; classic clinical papers (older but controlled) show increased firmness and some line reduction with topical 3% DMAE gel, but replication and effect sizes vary; can irritate in some users. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Toskani Mesolift Cocktail; Mesoline Tight (contains DMAE among ions).
  1. Ionic calcium/mineral solutions (e.g., calcium gluconate/chloride)
  • Evidence: Very limited direct human anti-wrinkle data as stand-alone actives; rationale (Ca²⁺ signaling) is mechanistic/adjunctive rather than outcome-driven. Use mainly as a co-ingredient in ionic blends. (I rank these lowest for clinical proof as primary actives.) (No high-quality RCTs isolating topical calcium salts for wrinkles found.)
  1. Exosome/emerging biologics (topical)
  • Evidence: Early human studies and reviews suggest improvements in wrinkles/pores/evenness, but heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and regulatory concerns (esp. human-derived exosomes) limit confidence. Consider as experimental. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Natuderma “exosome” vials (treat as exploratory).

Quick scoreboard (effect signal you can expect)

Class Typical outcome signal Notes / caveats
Polynucleotides (PN/PDRN) Moderate→High gains in wrinkles/elasticity (best human data, mostly injectable) Strongest overall evidence base; for DEP use, expect less than injection but likely above plain HA. (JKMS)
Copper & multi-peptides (incl. Argireline) Moderate improvements; some trials report 30–55% wrinkle parameter reductions with specific peptide systems Effects are formulation-dependent; still good topical RCT support. (PMC)
Hyaluronic acid (Na⁺ salt) High hydration (~+55%), small wrinkle softening Excellent safety and conductivity; pair with actives for structure. (PMC)
DMAE Small→Moderate firming/line softening in some trials Mixed literature; watch for irritation. (PMC)
Calcium/mineral solutions Low as stand-alones Better as adjuncts in peptide/HA bases.
Exosomes (topical) Promising but preliminary Regulatory status varies; human-data quality uneven. (PMC)

What this means for your shortlist

  • If you want maximum evidence-backed remodeling (closest to Radiesse’s “biostimulatory” vibe without particles): PN products (e.g., Nucleofill, Plinest) rank #1.
  • For topical/electroporation practicality with visible anti-aging over 8–12 weeks: Copper peptide + multi-peptide serums (e.g., Medik8 Copper PCA, The Ordinary/Paula’s Choice peptide serums, BCN Tensis) rank #2.
  • Use HA (RHA, Densimatrix, BCN HA) as your ionic carrier and hydration amplifier; layer or co-infuse with PN/peptides.
  • Keep DMAE and Ca²⁺ minerals as optional boosters, not core actives.
  • Treat exosomes as experimental until stronger, regulator-clean human RCTs appear.

If you’d like, I can draft two DEP infusion protocols (one PN-forward, one peptide-forward) with concentrations, pH targets, conductivity checks, and session cadence—plus a tiered product bill of materials to match budget vs. evidence.

2 Likes
#34

These are very interesting thoughts by gpt and yet the fact remains that most of my radiesse gets absorbed— it disappears so it must go into the skin, there being nowhere else to go. Perhaps it’s not nanohydroxyapatite but something else that’s ionic? Yet I see respectable providers who are clearly using the original branded product boast of making it work with DEP. The consistency of radiesse is a bit cement like almost, so there’s no way to fool oneself about whether it’s going in or not.

#35

We all know that CGPT is not always right! I guess it’s worth a try. Would be interesting to hear people’s luck with this with the true Radiesse.

I asked again about this to see if CGPT can find any examples of this, but no luck.

Short answer: I still can’t find any credible, citable cases (peer-reviewed papers, manufacturer protocols, or reputable clinic write-ups) of diluted/hyper-dilute Radiesse being used with a DEP/dermo-electroporation device. Every evidence-based source I can find treats CaHA (Radiesse) as injection-only—even when hyper-diluted. (PMC)

Why this likely doesn’t exist (or isn’t recommended):

  • Formulation mismatch: Radiesse is 25–45 µm CaHA microspheres in a CMC gel—a particulate suspension, not a freely mobile ionic liquid. DEP systems are indicated for ionic drug solutions (water-based, conductive), not suspensions. (Radiesse Injectables)
  • Regulatory/labeling: Radiesse is FDA-cleared as an injectable implant; DEP devices are cleared for transdermal administration of ionic solutions—two different categories with no official crossover guidance. (Radiesse Injectables)
  • Evidence base: Hyper-dilute Radiesse has consensus and studies—all by injection (biostimulation/skin quality), not via electroporation. (PMC)

What does exist:

  • I found a single Instagram claim of “DEP combined with Radiesse and Ultherapy” (no method or data). That’s anecdotal marketing, not a clinical report, so it doesn’t change the risk/benefit calculus. (Instagram )

Bottom line: Until there’s manufacturer guidance or peer-reviewed data, DEP + (diluted) Radiesse should be considered unsupported/experimental and not recommended. If your goal is needle-free collagen stimulation with DEP, stick to ionic, water-based actives (e.g., sodium hyaluronate, peptides, polynucleotides) designed for electro-delivery.

1 Like
#36

You literally watch it disappear. If you touch Radiesse and experience its consistency you know that it’s not like lotion being spread around.

1 Like
#37

IMG_4802
IMG_48021320×2868 174 KB

IMG_4800
IMG_48001320×2868 188 KB

IMG_4801
IMG_48011320×2868 395 KB

@RapAdmin strange how each model has its weird path dependencies and can settle on completely different answers. I have the paid ChatGPT and usually like to use model 5 research grade but it takes so long that I often just hit google up. Curious what yours says if you challenge it by mentioning dielectrophoresis and how it doesn’t rely on the polarity of the drug to be delivered.

1 Like
#38

It’s interesting… perhaps it depends on how you ask the question, also. I tried a slightly different question, trying to be as specific as I can. I believe that Radiesse needs to get at least down to the Mid-dermis for collagen stimulation.

It seems, from your experience, and the Instagram post you cited, Radiesse can at least be delivered sub-dermis. The open issue is how deep it goes, and does it work as a biostimlator at that level that it does get to.

So, Here is one of my attempts on Google (just using the standard google search bar):

Prompt:

can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully to the mid-dermis or deep dermis in people using dermo-electroporation?

Response:

Delivering hyperdilute Radiesse to the mid- or deep dermis using dermo-electroporation (DEP) is not feasible. The calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) microspheres in Radiesse are far too large to pass through the temporary micro-channels created by DEP technology.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of why this method is unsuccessful:

  • CaHA particle size: The CaHA microspheres in Radiesse range from 25 to 45 microns in diameter. This is a very large size for a particle to be delivered transdermally (across the skin).
  • DEP delivery mechanism: DEP works by using electrical pulses to open temporary, microscopic channels in the skin to increase permeability. This allows for the non-invasive delivery of water-soluble molecules.
  • DEP delivery limits: Even advanced DEP systems can only deliver substances to a maximum depth of 3 to 5 mm, targeting micro- and macro-molecules up to 800,000 Daltons. The solid, particulate CaHA microspheres in Radiesse are much larger than the molecules that DEP can transport.
  • Radiesse injection method: For hyperdilute Radiesse to reach the mid-to-deep dermal layers, it must be injected using a cannula or needle, which physically places the substance into the desired depth. This is how the treatment is performed in clinical practice.

Conclusion
While dermo-electroporation is an effective, non-invasive method for delivering certain active ingredients like hyaluronic acid or peptides into the dermis, it is completely unsuitable for delivering a particle-based product like hyperdilute Radiesse. For Radiesse to be successfully administered to the dermis, a medical professional must use a needle or cannula injection.

Another Question Approach with Google Search AI results:

Prompt: can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully using dermo-electroporation?

Response:

Yes, hyperdilute Radiesse can be delivered successfully using dermo-electroporation

(DEP). DEP is a needle-free system that is used as an alternative delivery method for substances like hyperdilute Radiesse, which is known for its ability to stimulate collagen production.

How dermo-electroporation (DEP) works

  • Dermo-electroporation is a non-invasive, powered drug-delivery system that increases the permeability of the skin.
  • It works by applying a controlled current to the patient’s skin, which temporarily opens water-based channels in the skin.
  • This allows both micro- and macromolecules to be absorbed into the deeper layers of the skin, including the hypodermis and muscle membranes, without the use of needles.

Another Question Approach with Google Gemini:

Prompt:

can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully to the mid-dermis or deep dermis in people using dermo-electroporation?

Response:

Based on the available information, the use of dermo-electroporation (DEP) to successfully deliver hyperdilute Radiesse (a Calcium Hydroxylapatite or CaHA product) specifically into the mid-dermis or deep dermis is a complex question with some conflicting or limited data.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

  1. Hyperdilute Radiesse:

    • It is a formulation of the Radiesse dermal filler diluted with saline and often lidocaine, resulting in a thinner, more spreadable solution.
    • It is typically used as a biostimulator to promote collagen and elastin production, often targeting larger areas and improving overall skin texture and laxity.
    • The standard, current clinical practice for delivery is injection (usually with a cannula) into the dermal layer or different depths within the dermis depending on the treatment area, not via a non-invasive device like electroporation.

  2. Dermo-Electroporation (DEP) Technology:

    • DEP systems are FDA-cleared for the local administration of ionic drug solutions into the body as an alternative to injections.
    • It uses controlled electrical pulses to create temporary micro-channels in the skin, enhancing permeability and facilitating the transdermal delivery of substances.
    • Some DEP device manufacturers claim they can infuse high-weight molecules, including certain dermal fillers (like RHA Redensity), neurotoxins, or Sculptra (another biostimulator), to depths of 3.0 to 5.0 mm into the dermis.
    • A depth of 3.0 to 5.0 mm would generally be considered within the range of the deep dermis or extending into the subcutaneous tissue.

  3. The Conflict/Uncertainty:

    • While some DEP manufacturers claim the capability to deliver high molecular weight components (like fillers or biostimulators), and even specifically mention delivering dermal fillers, there is a lack of widespread, independent, peer-reviewed clinical studies specifically confirming the successful, effective, and uniform delivery of the calcium hydroxyapatite microspheres in hyperdilute Radiesse to the intended mid-dermis or deep dermis layer using DEP.
    • One source reviewing the use of electroporation for another injectable moisturizer (a hyaluronic acid complex) noted that most studies show increased uptake in the epidermis, not the deep dermis, which is the correct layer for the product’s maximum benefit. This highlights a potential limitation of transdermal delivery devices compared to direct injection.

Conclusion:

While DEP technology is marketed as capable of delivering various high-weight molecules into the dermis up to $5.0 \text{ mm}$, direct, definitive evidence confirming the clinical success and efficacy of delivering hyperdilute Radiesse’s CaHA microspheres to the deep dermis using dermo-electroporation is not readily available in standard clinical literature. The primary and widely accepted method for delivering hyperdilute Radiesse remains injection with a needle or cannula.

Another Question Approach with Google Gemini:

Prompt:

can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully using dermo-electroporation?

Response:

The short answer is: Probably not effectively, based on the current scientific understanding and clinical practice.

Here is the detailed explanation:

The Challenge of Particle Size

Hyperdilute Radiesse works because of its active ingredient: Calcium Hydroxylapatite (CaHA) microspheres . These are microscopic particles suspended in a gel.

  • CaHA Microsphere Size: Radiesse microspheres typically have a diameter of 25 µm to 45 µm (micrometers) .This is a relatively large particle size.
  • Dermo-Electroporation (DEP) Mechanism: DEP works by using controlled electrical pulses to create transient, aqueous pores (nanopores) in the stratum corneum (the skin’s outermost layer) and lipid bilayers. This enhances the delivery of substances through the skin.
  • The Barrier: While DEP is highly effective for delivering small molecules (like certain peptides or vitamins) and some macromolecules (like hyaluronic acid, which can be broken down to smaller fragments), delivering solid microspheres in the 25-45 μm range is likely beyond the capability of the temporary pores created by DEP. The pores created by electroporation are typically on the nanometer scale.

Clinical Practice vs. DEP Claims

  1. Standard Clinical Protocol: The universally accepted and evidence-based method for delivering hyperdilute Radiesse is injection (using a needle or cannula) directly into the desired layer of the skin (subdermal or deep dermis). This method physically places the CaHA microspheres where they can contact fibroblasts and stimulate collagen.
  2. DEP Device Claims: Some DEP device manufacturers claim they can deliver a wide variety of macromolecules, even mentioning fillers or biostimulators, to the deep dermis (up to 3-5 mm). However, there is a significant lack of independent, peer-reviewed clinical studies specifically demonstrating the successful delivery of solid, large CaHA microspheres with DEP to a depth that would produce the collagen-stimulating effects seen with injection.
  3. Depth Limitation: Studies on similar large-molecule delivery via electroporation sometimes suggest that most of the uptake concentrates in the epidermis , failing to reach the crucial deep dermis where the fibroblasts need to be activated by the CaHA particles. The collagen-building effect requires direct contact between the CaHA microspheres and the dermal fibroblasts.

In summary, the sheer size of the CaHA microspheres makes their successful transport through the microscopic, temporary channels created by dermo-electroporation highly improbable, and this approach is not supported by established clinical guidelines for Radiesse.

Another Question Approach with Anthropic Claude:

Prompt:

can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully to the mid-dermis or deep dermis in people using dermo-electroporation?

Response

Based on my search, I cannot find any published evidence or established protocols for delivering hyperdilute Radiesse (calcium hydroxylapatite) using dermo-electroporation. Here’s why this appears to be problematic:

Standard Delivery Methods for Hyperdilute Radiesse

Hyperdilute Radiesse is traditionally delivered using needles or blunt-tipped cannulas through injection techniques AAFEPubMed Central. The standard approach involves superficial injection using microboluses, tunneling, and/or fanning techniques to place the diluted material in the dermis PubMed Central.

Dermo-Electroporation Technology

Dermo-electroporation uses controlled electrical pulses to create temporary channels in the skin, allowing transdermal delivery of ionic drug solutions at depths of 3-5mm RegenomedixDEP Medical. The technology can deliver molecules greater than 800,000 Daltons Regenomedix.

Key Compatibility Issues

There are several fundamental problems with combining these technologies:

  1. Physical Properties: Radiesse contains calcium hydroxylapatite microspheres that are 25-45 microns in diameter suspended in a gel carrier Medscape ReferencePubMed Central. These are physical particles, not ionic solutions that dermo-electroporation is designed to deliver.
  2. Mechanism Mismatch: Dermo-electroporation is designed for water-soluble ionic drug solutions RegenomedixDEP Medical, whereas Radiesse is a particulate suspension that requires mechanical placement.
  3. Lack of Evidence: I found no published studies, clinical protocols, or manufacturer guidance supporting this combination approach.

Clinical Recommendation: Given the lack of evidence and the incompatibility between the particulate nature of Radiesse and the ionic solution requirements of dermo-electroporation, this combination should not be attempted. Hyperdilute Radiesse should be delivered using established injection techniques with needles or cannulas as supported by clinical evidence.

Another Question Approach with Grok:

Prompt:

can hyperdilute radiesse be delivered successfully using dermo-electroporation?

Response

Overview of Hyperdilute Radiesse and Dermo-Electroporation

Hyperdilute Radiesse refers to calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) filler (the active ingredient in Radiesse®) mixed with saline and/or lidocaine at a ratio of 1:2 or higher, transforming it from a volumizing agent into a biostimulatory treatment. This dilution reduces viscosity, allowing superficial injection to promote neocollagenesis (new collagen production), elastogenesis, and improved skin quality, elasticity, and firmness without significant volume addition. It is commonly used for skin laxity, fine lines, crepiness, and cellulite on areas like the face, neck, décolletage, arms, and thighs.

Dermo-electroporation (also known as dermoelectroporation or DEP) is a non-invasive transdermal delivery technology that uses controlled electrical pulses to create temporary micro-channels in the skin’s lipid bilayers. This enhances permeability, enabling the delivery of macromolecules (up to 800,000 Daltons) into the dermis and hypodermis (up to 5 mm depth) without needles. Unlike traditional iontophoresis, it avoids pH adjustments or electrolysis and is FDA-cleared for medical drug delivery. It is often paired with serums, hyaluronic acid, or peptides for rejuvenation.

Can Hyperdilute Radiesse Be Delivered Successfully via Dermo-Electroporation?

Based on available evidence, there is no documented clinical use, study, or guideline supporting the successful delivery of hyperdilute Radiesse via dermo-electroporation. Radiesse, even in hyperdiluted form, is explicitly designed and approved as an injectable subdermal implant (FDA-cleared for injection via needle or cannula). Its CaHA microspheres (25–45 microns in diameter) are suspended in a carboxymethylcellulose gel carrier, which requires mechanical deposition into the subcutaneous or dermal layers to achieve therapeutic concentrations and stimulate fibroblast activity.

Key reasons this combination is unlikely to be successful or standard practice:

  • Delivery Mechanism Mismatch: Dermo-electroporation excels at transdermal diffusion of ionic solutions, water-soluble actives, or low-viscosity fluids (e.g., hyaluronic acid serums, vitamins, or peptides). However, hyperdilute Radiesse remains a semi-viscous suspension of microspheres. The electrical pulses may not effectively “transport” these particles through the stratum corneum without risking uneven distribution, aggregation, or skin irritation. Studies on electroporation focus on small molecules or soluble macromolecules, not particulate fillers like CaHA.
  • Safety and Efficacy Concerns: Injecting Radiesse ensures precise placement (e.g., supraperiosteal or subdermal for volumization; subcutaneous for biostimulation). Transdermal electroporation could lead to superficial deposition only, reducing biostimulatory effects and potentially causing transient pore disruption without lasting benefit. No adverse event data exists for this pairing, but electroporation’s reversible barrier disruption (restoring in hours) may not suffice for CaHA’s gradual neocollagenesis (peaking at 3–7 months).
  • Regulatory and Clinical Standards: All peer-reviewed guidelines (e.g., global consensus from Dermatologic Surgery, 2018; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 2019) emphasize needle/cannula injection for diluted/hyperdiluted CaHA, with dilution ratios tailored to cannulas of specific gauges (e.g., 25–27G for 1:2 ratios). Electroporation is not mentioned in Radiesse’s instructions for use or biostimulation protocols.
Aspect Standard Hyperdilute Radiesse Delivery (Injection) Dermo-Electroporation (Theoretical for Fillers)
Primary Method Needle or cannula (e.g., 22–27G) Electrical pulses creating micro-channels
Depth Achieved Subcutaneous/dermal (up to 5–10 mm) Dermal/hypodermal (up to 5 mm)
Suitable Substances Viscous CaHA suspensions (diluted 1:1 to 1:6) Ionic solutions, low-viscosity serums
Efficacy Evidence High (e.g., 70–90% improvement in laxity after 2–3 sessions) None for CaHA; effective for HA/peptides
Risks Bruising, swelling (resolves 1–3 days); rare nodules Skin tingling, temporary redness; potential uneven particle spread
Duration of Results 12–24 months N/A for this combo

Recommendations

  • Stick to Proven Methods: For hyperdilute Radiesse, opt for professional injection by a qualified dermatologist or aesthetic provider. Typical protocols involve 2–3 sessions spaced 4–8 weeks apart, with results visible in 1–3 months and lasting up to 2 years.
  • Alternatives via Electroporation: If seeking needle-free biostimulation, dermo-electroporation pairs well with hyperdiluted hyaluronic acid (HA) or collagen-boosting serums for similar (but milder) skin tightening effects.
  • Consult a Professional: Individual factors like skin type, age, and treatment area influence outcomes. Always discuss with a board-certified provider to avoid off-label risks.

If new research emerges (post-2025), this could change, but current data supports injection as the gold standard for hyperdilute Radiesse.

1 Like
#39

And here is what CGPT5 says about:

Prompt: Could DEP devices deliver hyperdilute Radiesse via the process of dielectrophoresis?

Response:

In short: no — a DEP (dermo-electroporation) device cannot deliver hyper-dilute Radiesse by dielectrophoresis.

Here’s why, step by step:

:one: DEP in Mattioli-style devices ≠ Dielectrophoresis

The “DEP” in Dermo Electro Poration is a marketing abbreviation for electroporation-like transdermal delivery — short, pulsed electric fields that temporarily open aqueous channels in the stratum corneum so ionic solutions can pass.
It is not the same physical mechanism as dielectrophoresis used in microfluidic or cell-sorting instruments.

:two: What dielectrophoresis actually requires

True dielectrophoresis moves neutral, polarizable particles in a non-uniform electric field by creating induced dipoles.
Effective dielectrophoretic transport demands:

  • Particle size: typically ≤ 10 µm
  • Field gradients: 10⁴–10⁶ V/m over micrometer electrode gaps
  • Medium: low-conductivity fluid (10⁻³–10⁻⁵ S/m)
  • Path length: micrometers to a few millimeters

Clinical DEP devices for skincare operate at:

  • Field strengths ≈ 10²–10³ V/m
  • Millimeter-scale electrode spacing
  • Highly conductive tissue (0.1–1 S/m)

Those conditions collapse dielectrophoretic forces by several orders of magnitude.

:three: Properties of hyper-dilute Radiesse

  • Particles: 25–45 µm calcium-hydroxylapatite microspheres (solid, heavy).
  • Carrier: viscous carboxymethyl-cellulose (CMC) gel, often mixed with saline.
  • Electrical behavior: high conductivity medium; non-polarizable solid spheres much larger than skin pores (~1–100 nm).

Under electric pulses from a dermo-electroporation handset, these particles cannot polarize or migrate through tissue barriers. They’d merely sit in the gel—no propulsion, no permeation.

:four: Skin structure and safety limits

Generating the field gradients needed to physically move 25–45 µm particles through the epidermis would require voltages high enough to cause pain, burns, or arcing. Skin also presents highly non-uniform conductivity, destroying any controlled gradient necessary for dielectrophoresis.

:white_check_mark: Conclusion

DEP devices (dermo-electroporation) do not use dielectrophoresis, and even if they did, the physics make it impossible to drive CaHA microspheres through skin.

Hyper-dilute Radiesse remains an injectable suspension only; its delivery relies on mechanical placement into the dermis/subdermis, not electrical migration.

If the goal is needle-free collagen stimulation, you’d need ionic, water-based actives (e.g., polynucleotides, peptides, copper ions, calcium gluconate) that can actually respond to electroporation currents—not particulate implants like CaHA.

1 Like
#40

Just checking on this again:

Prompt: What level of the dermis does Hyperdilute Radiesse need to get to, to act as a biostimulator?

CGPT5 Response:

Excellent, very precise question — and one that goes right to the heart of how CaHA (Radiesse) works as a biostimulatory filler rather than just a space-occupying implant.

Let’s go step-by-step through what the data and manufacturer guidance say.

:one: Mechanism: why dermal depth matters

Radiesse (Calcium Hydroxylapatite microspheres in CMC gel) stimulates collagen primarily through:

  • Fibroblast activation caused by controlled mechanical stretch and macrophage-mediated response around the microspheres.
  • Neocollagenesis and neoelastogenesis occur over weeks to months as the gel carrier resorbs, leaving behind a lattice of CaHA that triggers fibroblast and vascular remodeling.

This process requires direct interaction with fibroblasts in the deep dermis and superficial subdermis — not just the upper papillary layer.

:two: Depth targets in published protocols

Treatment goal Injection plane Typical needle depth Reason
Facial volumization (undiluted) Deep dermis → supraperiosteal 2–5 mm Provides structure and lift
Hyper-dilute biostimulation (1:2 – 1:6 dilution) Mid- to deep reticular dermis, or immediate subdermis ~1–3 mm depending on site Optimizes fibroblast activation without visible nodules
Neck, décolleté, body skin quality Deep dermis / upper subcutis 1.5–2.5 mm Stimulates collagen & elastin uniformly across thinner skin

:open_book: References:

  • Goldie et al., J Drugs Dermatol, 2018 (“Global Consensus on CaHA Hyperdilution”)
  • Moradi et al., Dermatol Surg, 2020 (“Hyperdilute CaHA for skin laxity”)
  • Merz Aesthetics Radiesse Injection Guide (professional monograph)

All agree: the particles must contact fibroblast-rich reticular dermis, generally 1–3 mm below the surface, to trigger the collagen-inducing response.

:three: Why shallower or deeper placement is less effective

Too superficial (papillary dermis, < 0.5 mm) Optimal (mid-reticular dermis ≈ 1–3 mm) Too deep (subcutaneous > 4–5 mm)
Visible whitening, nodules, uneven texture Contact with fibroblasts → collagen & elastin synthesis Less fibroblast density → weak stimulation, delayed effect

So, the sweet spot is the mid-reticular dermis — roughly 1–2 mm depth on face, or 2–3 mm on neck/body — deep enough for fibroblast contact, shallow enough to stay within dermal collagen network.

:four: Delivery summary

  • Product: Radiesse or Radiesse(+lidocaine), diluted 1:2 – 1:6 with saline ± lidocaine
  • Injection plane: mid-to-deep reticular dermis / upper subdermis
  • Needle or cannula depth: typically 1–3 mm facial, 2–3 mm neck/body
  • Spread technique: linear-thread, fanning, or micro-bolus (~0.1 mL each point)
  • Goal: even dermal distribution of microspheres in fibroblast zone, avoiding papillary dermis and visible blanching

:white_check_mark: Bottom line

For Radiesse (even when hyper-diluted) to act as a biostimulator, it must reach at least the mid- to deep reticular dermis—approximately 1–3 mm below the skin surface, where fibroblasts, collagen, and elastin fibers are densest.

That’s the depth that cannot be achieved by electroporation or topical means — it requires mechanical injection to place CaHA microspheres within that fibroblast-rich zone.

1 Like