#441

@medaura I’m looking into this DEP device. It looks very promising (i was allways scared of needles :sweat_smile:) and I’d love to learn more. I couldn’t find the manual on Scribd or anywhere else; could you share it (link or file)? Also, a few of the Alibaba links from your earlier posts in another thread no longer work. Is Annis Dang still your contact? Probably she is best to inquire about prices/shipping etc.

2 Likes
#442

Annis is who I buy the products to use with DEP from. But the device itself is from Dennis Ma, with this WhatsApp contact. Ask him for the DEP device and he can whip up a purchase link

IMG_4630
IMG_46301320×2868 140 KB

4 Likes
#443

Good thanks! I’m already writing him as I write this :sweat_smile:

If it’s really around $200, it’s a no-brainer.

If you have the original manual, I’d be most grateful too.

PS: One hour later. Ordered it :see_no_evil: It was 200 euro including shipping and optional consumables. Your contact is really efficient and quick.

4 Likes
#444

Oh he can send you the manual in pdf form but unfortunately it’s more like a marketing brochure than a manual. To see how to use it just watch that webinar @RapAdmin linked to. Basically use level 3 on the face, if you can stand it (the weird electric current feeling) and 5 on the body. It’s also highly recommended to exfoliate prior to remove dead skin cells and make it easier for the compounds to penetrate. I use a cheap microdermabrasion kit from Temu, but when I’m in a hurry just go for a good makeup removal wipe. You’ll see there’s nothing to it once you play with the DEP — very easy to use.

The manual I mentioned was for the ultra former MPT — I found it there so I can have precise settings.

2 Likes
#445

So, although I know there are various good methods for fixing scars, I was still was interested in understanding how some standard methods that some dermatologists recommend – like silicone gel – work. It just seems to run counter to the fact that scars are about disorganized collagen fibers. Apparently what happens is that (according to a Google search) following an injury, the skin loses a lot of water; this water loss triggers keratinocytes to release cytokines; these cytokines, in turn, induce fibroblasts to produce excessive collagen; and these create disorganized fibers. Putting silicone gel over the scar stops the water loss, resulting in diminished signals to produce collagen; fibroblasts respond. Then, on top of that, silicone somehow influences growth factors; and a balance between fibrolysis and fibrogenesis is restored; and so scar flattens.

I don’t think it works well on regular skin (non-scar), though, to “de-age” it.

…

I thought a little about that (de-age skin), also. It seems to me that what I keep hearing about “collagen” and “fat” and the other things don’t help you understand what the real problem is. Here are two (there are more) that are key: (1) You’ve got the 3D structure of skin organized in a way that looks “old” or “cellulite” or whatever; and (2) The skin is too pliable or “jiggly”. These can probably be fixed using some simple methods. e.g. the second one you can fix by just laying down a checkerboard pattern on the skin, e.g. using some kind of invisible gel like silicone; but you’d probably want something stronger. The vertical lines would make it hard to move the skin horizontally, and the horizontal lines would make it hard to move it vertically. That would make the skin no longer jiggly. And, in fact, there are skin products with “film-forming agents” that achieve a similar end (and, for example, temporarily eliminate signs of “turkey neck”).

#446

Oh, wow. I had no idea Rapa effected that!

2 Likes
#447

Thanks! Can’t wait to try it should arrive in about a week.
How often do you use yours?
You mentioned hyperdilute Radiesse. I’m guessing it also works with a range of skin boosters, right?

#448

Do you have a picture of what you have ordered to share?

#449

Yes, @LaraPo. It’s essentially the same device @medaura has been using for a while, since the summer, if I’m not mistaken.

I did some preliminary research (bought it before I could dig deeper) and it seems promising. I’m still unsure about the hyperdilute Radiesse claim as CaHA spheres may be too large to penetrate the skin even with DEP, and I’ve seen anecdotal reports plus some before-and-afters that don’t disclose they combined injectables with DEP clearly so it might be misleading. I’ll definitely test it with other products. I have a range of injectables on hand, but I rarely use them because I’m squeamish about needles and pain. I also read you can infuse plain lidocaine beforehand more invasive procedures to numb the area more effectively than topical cream. Will likely try that :sweat_smile:.

Let's see what's new
Let's see what's new1206×1193 43.2 KB


DEP说明书(1)_compressed.pdf (6.9 MB)

3 Likes
#450

Am I correct that you have to apply a serum of your choice to skin first and then it pushes it 1-3 mm deep per your settings? So whatever is on your skin will be pushed inside. Is it how it works? @medaura

#451

I doubt that even super diluted Radiesse can be applied by DEP. Why not to use nano needles to apply it? With nano needles there’s no sensation, no blood, no pain.

1 Like
#452

You say “nano-needles,” I say “ouch.” Maybe it’s a me-thing. I’ll give nano-needles a try thx for suggesting, but my main concern isn’t my face, it’s my neck. Hyperdilute Radiesse is usually done with a cannula, and the one time I tried a cannula in my face I actually fainted from a vasovagal response. The sensation was just too strange.
Honestly, my skin is fine. I’m mostly looking for prevention. So serums and biostimulators could be a better fit with DEP. I could see myself using DEP more regularly.

#453

Yes, cannula is pretty invasive. Nano needles are nothing like cannula and work fine on neck, but I’ve never tried them for diluted Radiesse.

1 Like
#454

Lara, can you please post a link to what you are talking about when you say “nano-needles” - do you use these in mesotherapy applications (directly injecting through these nano needles)?, I’m sure most of us have never heard of these and don’t know what you are talking about. Do you use these? Why or why not? Is this one of your mesotherapy approaches?

Also - I did a little research on the product you’ve mentioned on ChatGPT…

My Prompt: What is the scientific and clinical validation of products like CytoCare 532 used in mesotherapy applications?

GPT5 Response:

Here’s the short, honest take: there’s decent evidence that intradermal, non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid (HA) injections improve skin quality (hydration, elasticity, texture)—but brand-specific, high-quality trials for “cocktail” mesotherapy products like Cytocare 532 are sparse. Most of the benefit signal appears to come from the HA itself, not from the added vitamins/“rejuvenating complexes.”

What’s actually validated

  • HA “skin-booster” injections work. Systematic reviews of injectable (non-crosslinked) HA show significant improvements in hydration, firmness, texture, and elasticity vs. baseline/usual care. (PMC)
  • Mesotherapy with non-reticulated HA (i.e., HA micro-aliquots placed intradermally) has RCT/controlled data showing better elasticity and radiance after treatment series (classic mesotherapy protocol). (PMC)
  • Several recent randomized trials used non-crosslinked HA sourced from Cytocare vials as the HA material in split-face/controlled designs—supporting the concept that this class of HA can improve skin quality—but these studies were not designed to isolate any unique effect of Cytocare’s added “CT” complexes. (PMC)

What’s weaker or missing

  • Cocktail superiority is unproven. The best available synthesis indicates HA alone often outperforms “HA + multi-ingredient cocktails” for facial skin quality endpoints; additive vitamins/aminos haven’t consistently shown incremental benefit in controlled trials. (ResearchGate)
  • Mesotherapy as a technique remains heterogeneous. Recent consensus/guidelines note few well-controlled RCTs, variable mixtures/dosing/technique, and call for better standardization and head-to-head studies. (MDPI)
  • Brand-level evidence is mostly marketing or distributor write-ups; peer-reviewed, blinded, brand-specific RCTs for Cytocare 532 (HA 32 mg/mL + “CT” complex) are limited. (Manufacturer pages list ingredients/claims but not robust pivotal trials.) (SAS REVITACARE)

What Cytocare 532 contains (why the effects likely track HA)

Cytocare 532 combines non-crosslinked HA at ~32 mg/mL with a proprietary “rejuvenating complex” (vitamins, amino acids, micro-elements). Independent summaries consistently list this composition; however, the incremental clinical effect of the complex over HA alone isn’t well demonstrated in RCTs. (TopDermal)

Practical takeaways for use/expectations

  • Expectations: Improvement in hydration, elasticity, skin “glow,” and fine lines over a series (e.g., 3 sessions 3–4 weeks apart), consistent with other non-crosslinked HA “skin boosters.” (PMC)
  • If you care about evidence density: Prioritize protocols/products where HA is the clearly active component; don’t assume cocktails add more benefit without head-to-head data. (ResearchGate)
  • Risk/technique: Outcomes depend heavily on proper intradermal depth, dosing grid, and asepsis; mesotherapy overall still lacks standardized regimens per consensus documents. (MDPI)

Bottom line

  • Supported: HA-based intradermal mesotherapy (the “skin-booster” concept) has moderate-quality clinical support for improving skin quality. (PMC)
  • Not yet proven: Cytocare 532’s multi-ingredient cocktail being superior to HA alone hasn’t been convincingly shown in peer-reviewed, controlled, brand-specific trials. (ResearchGate)

If you want, I can assemble a quick matrix of the best-quality studies (design, N, regimen, endpoints, effect sizes) for HA-mesotherapy versus cocktail products (Cytocare, NCTF/NCTF135HA, Jalupro, etc.) so you can see side-by-side what’s strongest.

Here’s a crisp, side-by-side matrix of the best, brand-relevant evidence I could find for intradermal, non-crosslinked HA “skin-booster/biorevitalization” versus multi-ingredient cocktail products. I prioritized randomized/controlled designs and objective endpoints (profilometry, Cutometer, Corneometer). Where brand-specific RCTs don’t exist, I note that clearly.

Evidence matrix (HA mesotherapy & cocktail products)

Product / Class Study design & N Regimen & sites Primary endpoints Main results (effect size signal) Notes
Non-crosslinked HA (generic class) Randomized, double-blind, split-face, placebo-controlled; N=30 adults with facial aging 3 sessions intradermal NCHA vs saline (face) Wrinkle scores; firmness/elasticity; hydration; radiance NCHA side showed significant reductions in fine wrinkles and increases in firmness, elasticity, hydration & radiance vs saline at D45–D90 (split-face). (PMC) High-quality class evidence for intradermal non-crosslinked HA (not a specific “cocktail”).
Non-reticulated HA mesotherapy (class) Randomized controlled trial; N=55 women 3 sessions, facial intradermal HA vs control Cutometer® elasticity, radiance Significant ↑ in skin elasticity and radiance versus control; biometrological confirmation post-series. (PMC) Landmark RCT supporting mesotherapy-style HA efficacy.
NCTF®135HA (FILLMED) Randomized, multicenter, active-controlled; N=145 (3:1) 3 sessions (crow’s feet, neck, décolleté) + moisturizer vs moisturizer alone Profilometric wrinkle volume, clinical scores, hydration, patient-reported outcomes Significantly greater wrinkle reduction at D75 & D120 vs control; hydration ↑ 7 days post-last injection; mostly mild AEs. (Advanced medical imaging) High-quality brand-specific RCT for a cocktail (5 mg/mL HA + 59 nutrients).
NCTF®135HA (device/technique adjunct) Randomized split-face/neck needle vs micro-needle delivery; N≈40 3 sessions Same anti-aging outcomes; tolerability Demonstrated feasibility & tolerability; supports protocol/technique, not superiority of actives. (uk.fillmed.com) Methodology paper—useful for delivery optimization.
Jalupro® Super Hydro (amino-acid cocktail + HA) Prospective clinical study (non-randomized); N≈40–60 Typical series of intradermal sessions (face) Corneometer hydration, elasticity, clinician/subject scales Hydration ↑ (Corneometer), elasticity & texture improved vs baseline; no head-to-head vs HA-only control. (PMC) Brand-specific prospective data; not randomized or controlled vs HA-alone.
Non-crosslinked HA gel “micro-injections” (class) Prospective controlled (various), incl. 2024 analyses Multiple micro-injections for facial aging Global skin-quality outcomes Consistent improvement in skin quality (texture, fine lines); safety acceptable. (Wiley Online Library) Confirms the class effect but heterogeneity across protocols.
RF + HA mesotherapy (adjunct) Prospective comparative; N≈45 Combined bipolar RF + HA meso vs RF alone Hydration, firmness, tone Combo > RF alone on hydration/firmness; not a pure mesotherapy test. (PMC) Shows add-on value but confounded by RF energy.
Cytocare® 532 (32 mg/mL HA + “CT50” cocktail) No peer-reviewed RCT isolating Cytocare 532 vs HA alone found — — Public materials confirm composition/indication; brand-level RCT evidence remains sparse. (TopDermal) Clinical claims ride on the HA mesotherapy class evidence above; cocktail superiority unproven.
NCTF®135HA overview (2024 review/analysis) Peer-reviewed narrative/observational Various protocols Safety & performance summary Supports tolerability and multi-site benefits; consolidates evidence for NCTF protocols. (PMC)
General mesotherapy guidelines / reviews Guideline/review — Evidence grading Note heterogeneity, call for standardized RCTs/head-to-heads. (PMC)

Key takeaways (fast)

  • Best evidence (randomized) exists for non-crosslinked HA mesotherapy as a class and for NCTF 135HA specifically (cocktail with 5 mg/mL HA): both improve wrinkles, hydration, and elasticity after a short series. (PMC)
  • Cytocare 532: brand-specific, peer-reviewed head-to-head vs HA-alone or placebo RCTs are not evident in the literature; current support is largely class evidence (HA mesotherapy works) plus marketing/regulatory materials. (TopDermal)
  • Jalupro (and similar cocktails): prospective data show improvements from baseline (hydration/elasticity), but lack randomized controls versus HA-alone; so incremental value of the cocktail over HA has not been convincingly proven. (PMC)

Practical interpretation

If you want evidence density, the hierarchy is roughly:

  1. Non-crosslinked HA mesotherapy (class evidence, RCTs) → reliable skin-quality gains;
  2. NCTF 135HA (brand-specific RCT) → strongest cocktail-brand data;
  3. Other cocktails (e.g., Cytocare 532, Jalupro) → supportive but weaker (non-randomized, baseline-comparison studies).
2 Likes
#455

I tried Filorga NCTF135 ha on a friend - she developed red rash 30 min after application.The rash lasted 48 hours (exactly like Filorga warns about this possible side effect). So I never tried it on myself. I stick to CytoCare 532 because it doesn’t give me any sides, always delivers good results.

1 Like
#456

IMG_4190
IMG_41901284×357 95.3 KB

2 Likes
#457

Yes that’s how it works. Up to 5 mm deep. I used it with 1:2 dilution Radiesse and it was absolutely absorbed. There was the slightest “chalky” residue on my face left at the end but that’s nothing after 1.5 cc of the stuff. You know it’s consistency so hard to hide it around the face if it doesn’t get absorbed.

1 Like
#459

I think this is what you’re talking about:

They have different pin-count versions: Crystal Multi Needle 3Pin 5Pin 9Pin – Auro Technology

#460

I bought those for skin boosters and for me they don’t work at all. They don’t seem to inject properly — maybe I got the wrong size of needle (too short) or maybe my technique is lacking. For hyperdilute radiesse you’re not supposed to use them anyway because you want to fan out the injection very evenly, NOT leave lumps under the skin to be absorbed later. That can cause granulomas. So I wouldn’t use those with Radiesse or Sculptra even if I knew how to make the injection part work. DEP is much safer for those of us who don’t know how to properly inject with a needle or cannula.

#461

Yes, exactly. These needles are mesotherapy needles for very thin formulations like Volite by Juvederm or CytoCare. I use them on my neck or upper face near eyes. Work very well and absolutely painless. Expensive though - buy them on EBay - need better source.

1 Like