Profhilo vs Polynucleotides: Which Biostimulator Wins?

If you’re looking to refresh your skin without going down the filler route, you’ve probably heard of Profhilo and polynucleotides. Both are popular non-surgical injectable treatments we offer at Dr Louise Pierre Aesthetics.

They are often compared because both are injectable biostimulators that improve skin quality without adding the volume we associate with dermal fillers, but they work in quite different ways.

Profhilo is a hyaluronic acid treatment, made from the same substance your body naturally produces to help keep the skin hydrated and plump. It is mainly used for deep hydration and mild skin laxity.

Polynucleotides are different. They are made from purified DNA fragments, commonly derived from salmon or trout, and are used to support skin repair and renewal.

There is overlap in the changes these treatments can address, including hydration, elasticity, texture and fine lines. The more useful differences are what each treatment is designed to do and where it can be used.

This is one of the main differences I think patients should understand.

Standard Profhilo treatment follows a specific pattern of injection points on each side of the face. The product then spreads through the surrounding tissue.

That works well when the concern is hydration or mild laxity in those areas, but it also has limitations. The usual Profhilo facial treatment does not directly treat the forehead, under the eyes or large parts of the area around the mouth.

So I wouldn’t describe Profhilo as a treatment for overall skin quality across the whole face. On the other hand, we have more freedom where to place polynucleotides. That gives us more flexibility when the concern is localised, for example around the eyes or in another specific area where the skin has become thin, crepey or less resilient.

For me, that difference in treatment coverage matters as much as the difference between the products themselves.

With Profhilo, I would first look at where the patient is actually seeing the problem and what is there to improve.

If the main concern is in the lower and mid-face areas covered by the standard treatment technique, and the skin looks less hydrated or less firm, Profhilo is a sensible option.

It is because hyaluronic acid attracts water to the treated tissue, giving the skin more plumped appearance, but hydration isn’t the only part of what Profhilo does. Research has also shown improvements in elasticity and skin laxity, so it is more than just an injectable moisturiser.

Polynucleotides give us more freedom in where we treat. They can be used across a larger area or focused more closely on a specific concern, rather than following the more fixed treatment pattern used with Profhilo.

Research is looking at how polynucleotides affect fibroblasts, the cells involved in skin repair and collagen production, as well as the extracellular matrix, the supportive framework around those cells. The evidence is promising; studies suggest polynucleotides can support skin repair and improve skin quality, but we still need stronger research to understand how much regeneration they produce in practice.

This is probably where the difference between the two treatments becomes easiest to understand.

Standard Profhilo does not directly treat the under-eye area. However, polynucleotides can be injected directly into the thin, crepey under-eye skin to improve it’s texture and firmness.

Even thought, polynucleotides are popular choice for treating the under-eye area, it does not mean every concern will respond to them. Dark or tired-looking eyes can come from very different causes, including:

• thin skin
• pigmentation
• visible blood vessels
• tear-trough hollowing
• puffiness
• shadowing caused by facial anatomy

Polynucleotides won’t replace lost volume or help with puffiness. That is why I always come back to importance of face to face consultation before recommending any treatment.

I also do not like to oversell my own experience and make over positive claims. I haven’t personally seen quick, dramatic under-eye polynucleotide results that I would describe as amazing. The difficulty is that changes are subtle and develop gradually and I do not always see my patient again several months later.

For me, the key is ensuring the treatment goal matches what polynucleotides can realistically improve.

Yes, they can be part of the same treatment plan. In fact, we often recommend a combined approach. Profhilo gives you that immediate hydration and glow, while Polynucleotides work quietly behind the scenes to repair your skin.

But we understand that the budget matters too. Not everyone wants every possible treatment at once. In that case, I rather prioritise the treatment most relevant to their main concern.

I don’t think there is an overall winner.

There is also no strong direct evidence showing that Profhilo consistently performs better than polynucleotides, or vice versa.
As a simple distinction, I tend to think of Profhilo more for hydration, glow, and mild skin laxity, while polynucleotides are more like skin healers that work more gradually to support repair and improve skin quality.

For me, the choice comes down to three things:

What are we trying to improve? Where is the problem? And what is causing it?

So it isn’t really one versus the other. It is about choosing the right tool, or sometimes the right combination of tools, for your skin.

If you are considering either treatment at Dr Louise Pierre Aesthetics, you can read our full guides to Profhilo and polynucleotides before deciding whether you would like to discuss your options.

To book a consultation or ask us any question get in touch.