Which has better evidence?

Neither is well evidenced, and they are thin in different ways. Polynucleotides have more studies — nine, covering 219 patients — but rated low to moderate quality with half the wrinkle findings not reaching significance. PDLLA has fewer but one is a split-face randomised design, which is stronger per study, in 33 people over 24 weeks. Small either way.

Can either be dissolved if I do not like it?

Not the way hyaluronic acid filler can. Hyaluronidase breaks down hyaluronic acid; it does not remove polynucleotide or PDLLA. In the PDLLA trial, one participant's swelling was treated with a steroid and hyaluronidase — the hyaluronidase acting on the hyaluronic acid component of that product, not on the polymer. Treat both as decisions you cannot simply undo.

Are they both skin boosters?

They are both sold under that label, which is a technique rather than a product category. That label groups things with different actives and different evidence, so it tells you very little on its own.

Clinics propose combinations freely. What no evidence supports is a claim about what the combination achieves — neither evidence base studies them together. If both are proposed, ask what each is for and what the total course costs.

How fast does each show?

Both are slow. The polynucleotide review describes visible texture and elasticity change within about three months; the PDLLA trial measured to week 24. Judging either at two weeks tells you nothing, and early fullness from a hyaluronic acid component is not the result.

Which should I choose?

This page will not choose. What it can say is that the evidence does not establish either as better, that neither is reversible, that both are courses rather than single treatments, and that anyone quoting you a precise improvement figure for either is quoting something other than the published literature.

Comparisons · also called Rejuran Healer, 리쥬란, PN injection

Rejuran vs Juvelook: two different bets on your own collagen

Both are injected for skin quality — one salmon-derived polynucleotide, one a lactic acid polymer. Neither can be dissolved, and neither is well evidenced.

Author: Aesthetics Korea Editorial Team
Medical review: Reviewed by 2 doctorsSee methodology
Published: 8 September 2026
Last updated: 8 September 2026
Last reviewed: —5 min read

Short answer

Both are injected to change skin quality rather than to add contour, and both work through your own tissue response rather than by filling space. Rejuran's active is polynucleotide, purified from salmon; Juvelook's is poly-D,L-lactic acid, a collagen stimulator. The differences that matter to a patient are reversibility and the state of the evidence, and they do not point the same way.

Key facts

Rejuran — active: Polynucleotides (PN), long DNA fragments purified from salmon
Juvelook — active: Poly-D,L-lactic acid (PDLLA), often formulated with non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid
How each works: Both provoke a tissue response over months rather than occupying space
Reversibility: Neither active is dissolved by hyaluronidase; only the hyaluronic acid component of a PDLLA product is
Rejuran evidence: 9 studies, 219 patients, low to moderate quality, half the wrinkle findings significant
Juvelook evidence: One split-face trial, 33 subjects, non-inferior to PLLA, authors call long-term safety unsettled

What they have in common

Both are injected across an area rather than placed in one spot, both are aimed at skin quality rather than contour, and both work by provoking your own tissue rather than by occupying space.

That last point is the one that matters and the one marketing blurs. Neither is a filler. If the complaint is a hollow or descended tissue, neither is the tool, however they are sold.

Both are also sold as courses, so the number to ask for is the total rather than the price of a session.

What separates them

	Rejuran	Juvelook
Active	Polynucleotides, purified from salmon	Poly-D,L-lactic acid (PDLLA)
Often formulated with	—	Non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid
Proposed mechanism	Adenosine receptor activation, angiogenesis, fibroblast proliferation	Collagen stimulation as the polymer degrades
Onset	Texture and elasticity change described within about three months	Builds over months; trial measured to week 24
Reversible	No	No
Evidence	9 studies, 219 patients, low–moderate quality	1 split-face trial, 33 subjects

Neither can be undone

This is the practical warning both pages carry and it is worth stating once more against each other, because the reassurance patients have about hyaluronic acid filler does not transfer.

Hyaluronidase dissolves hyaluronic acid. It does not remove polynucleotide, and it does not remove PDLLA. In the PDLLA trial, one participant's moderate swelling was treated with an intralesional steroid and hyaluronidase — and that hyaluronidase was acting on the hyaluronic acid component of the product, not on the polymer.

So with either, a conservative first treatment is not caution for its own sake. It is the only exit available.

The evidence, honestly, on both sides

Neither is well evidenced. They are thin differently, which is the useful part.

Polynucleotides have volume: a 2024 systematic review pooled nine studies covering 219 patients. But the studies were rated low to moderate quality, none scored fully on critical appraisal, and of the six reporting wrinkle improvement, half reached statistical significance. The reviewers' conclusion asks for rigorous studies.

PDLLA has one better-designed study and less of it: a 2026 split-face trial in 33 subjects, each person acting as their own control, finding the PDLLA product non-inferior to PLLA — wrinkle severity improvement of −1.37 against −1.20 at week 24, no significant difference. Its most telling figure is that 70% of patients had no preference between the two sides of their own face. The authors say directly that long-term safety needs further study.

So: more studies of weaker quality against fewer studies of better design, both small. Nothing here establishes either as superior, and anybody who tells you otherwise is not citing this.

What that means when a clinic proposes one

The decision is not going to be settled by evidence, because the evidence does not separate them. What you can do instead:

Ask which product exactly, in Korean, and check which MFDS portal it is licensed on.
Ask how many sessions and the total, since both are courses.
Ask when to judge it — and hold the clinic to that date rather than an earlier one.
Treat any precise percentage claim as marketing.
Remember neither can be dissolved, and start conservatively.

If both are proposed together, ask what each is for. No study examines them in combination, so a claim about what the pair achieves is not coming from the literature.

The bottom line

Rejuran is polynucleotide and Juvelook is PDLLA; both are injected for skin quality, both work through your own tissue response over months, and neither can be dissolved. The evidence is small on both sides — nine low-to-moderate-quality studies in 219 patients for polynucleotides, one split-face trial in 33 people for PDLLA — and does not establish either as better. Choose on product transparency, course cost, and the operator, not on a claimed advantage.

Frequently asked questions

Which has better evidence?: Neither is well evidenced, and they are thin in different ways. Polynucleotides have more studies — nine, covering 219 patients — but rated low to moderate quality with half the wrinkle findings not reaching significance. PDLLA has fewer but one is a split-face randomised design, which is stronger per study, in 33 people over 24 weeks. Small either way.
Can either be dissolved if I do not like it?: Not the way hyaluronic acid filler can. Hyaluronidase breaks down hyaluronic acid; it does not remove polynucleotide or PDLLA. In the PDLLA trial, one participant's swelling was treated with a steroid and hyaluronidase — the hyaluronidase acting on the hyaluronic acid component of that product, not on the polymer. Treat both as decisions you cannot simply undo.
Are they both skin boosters?: They are both sold under that label, which is a technique rather than a product category. That label groups things with different actives and different evidence, so it tells you very little on its own.
Can I have both?: Clinics propose combinations freely. What no evidence supports is a claim about what the combination achieves — neither evidence base studies them together. If both are proposed, ask what each is for and what the total course costs.
How fast does each show?: Both are slow. The polynucleotide review describes visible texture and elasticity change within about three months; the PDLLA trial measured to week 24. Judging either at two weeks tells you nothing, and early fullness from a hyaluronic acid component is not the result.
Which should I choose?: This page will not choose. What it can say is that the evidence does not establish either as better, that neither is reversible, that both are courses rather than single treatments, and that anyone quoting you a precise improvement figure for either is quoting something other than the published literature.

Medical evidence

Systematic review2024n = 219
The Effectiveness of Polynucleotides in Esthetic Medicine: A Systematic Review
"Polynucleotides offer promising potential in esthetic medicine; however, there is limited consensus regarding their optimal use. Rigorous, high-quality studies are essential to validate the effectiveness and safety of PN."
Randomised trial2026n = 33
A Split Face Study Comparing the Effect of a PDLLA Based Product and PLLA on the Nasolabial Fold
"The PDLLA based product demonstrated non-inferiority to PLLA for NLF correction. Further studies are needed to assess long-term safety."

Sources

Listed in the order they are used. Source class follows the methodology.

1.The Effectiveness of Polynucleotides in Esthetic Medicine: A Systematic Review, Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, December 2024Peer-reviewed researchaccessed 2026-09-08Nine studies, 219 patients, low to moderate quality with none achieving full scores on critical appraisal. Six studies reported wrinkle improvement, half statistically significant. Texture and elasticity change described as visible within three months. Side effects mild and transient.
2.A Split Face Study Comparing the Effect of a PDLLA Based Product and PLLA on the Nasolabial Fold (NLF), Skin Research and Technology, 2026;32(1):e70324Peer-reviewed researchaccessed 2026-09-0833 subjects, three injections at weeks 0, 4 and 8, assessed to week 24. PDLLA mean wrinkle severity improvement −1.37 against −1.20 for PLLA, no significant difference on non-inferiority testing. 80% satisfied or greatly satisfied; 70% had no preference between sides. One case of moderate swelling resolved with intralesional steroid and hyaluronidase.
3.의약품안전나라 (Drug Safety Korea), Ministry of Food and Drug SafetyGovernment / public bodyaccessed 2026-09-08One of the two portals a specific injectable may be licensed on, depending on its classification.
4.의료기기 안심책방 (MFDS medical device information portal), Ministry of Food and Drug SafetyGovernment / public bodyaccessed 2026-09-08The other. Check which portal a given product appears on rather than assuming.

Treatments

Concerns it addresses

Related treatments