SkincareEvidence ReviewAug 2026

PDRN: What Polynucleotide Skin Repair Research Actually Reports

PDRN is sold in Asia as a skin repair breakthrough, usually under the name of one Korean brand. The underlying research is real, but it does not say what the clinic websites say it says. Here is what PDRN is made of, how it differs from polynucleotide, which results came from human trials, which came from mice and cell culture, and which published trials were later withdrawn.

216

Randomised, 2014 ulcer trial

Studies in the 2025 PN review, 1 retracted

US-approved aesthetic PDRN

A note on what this page does not contain. In clinical practice PDRN is delivered by injection, by a licensed clinician. This page therefore carries no doses, no schedules, no injection technique and no product sourcing. It describes what the published research measured and reported. Anything beyond that belongs in a conversation with a doctor or pharmacist who can examine you.

What PDRN Is

PDRN stands for polydeoxyribonucleotide. The first thing to understand is that it is not one molecule with one structure. It is a mixture of DNA fragments of varying length, and that mixture is the product.

The 2017 review in Frontiers in Pharmacology that most later papers cite describes PDRN as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights ranging between 50 and 1,500 kDa, derived from a controlled purification and sterilisation process applied to the sperm DNA of Oncorhynchus mykiss, salmon trout, or Oncorhynchus keta, chum salmon. The authors state that this process is what guarantees the absence of active protein and peptides, which are the components that could otherwise cause an immune reaction (PMID 28491036). A corrigendum to that review was published in 2022 (PMID 36479198).

Two consequences follow from that description, and both matter when you read a product page. First, PDRN is a fish DNA extract, so anyone with a fish allergy has an obvious question to raise with a doctor. Second, because the active ingredient is defined by a manufacturing process and a molecular weight window rather than by a single chemical formula, two products both labelled PDRN are not automatically the same thing.

PDRN vs Polynucleotide

This is the question most people arrive with, and most explainers skip it entirely or treat the two words as synonyms. They are related, they come from the same raw material, and they are not the same.

A 2025 review in Pharmaceutics sets out the distinction directly. Polynucleotide, abbreviated PN, is composed of longer DNA fragments, and the review attributes to it a key role in extracellular matrix remodelling. PDRN is composed of relatively shorter oligonucleotide sequences than PN, and the review attributes its effect to adenosine receptor activation together with support for nucleotide synthesis through both the salvage and the de novo pathways (Kim, PMID 40871045).

Term	What the 2025 review says	Attributed role
PN (polynucleotide)	Longer DNA fragments	Extracellular matrix remodelling
PDRN	Shorter oligonucleotide sequences than PN	Adenosine receptor activation, nucleotide synthesis support

One honest caveat about that table. The 2025 review describes the size relationship in relative terms, PDRN being shorter than PN, while the 2017 pharmacology review gives PDRN an absolute molecular weight window of 50 to 1,500 kDa. Those two descriptions are not stated in the same units and this page does not merge them into a single number. If a seller quotes you a precise fragment length as the reason their product is superior, ask which paper that figure comes from.

The Proposed Mechanism

The 2017 Frontiers in Pharmacology review states that the most relevant mechanism of action suggested by in vitro and in vivo experiments is engagement of the adenosine A2A receptor, and that beyond binding that receptor PDRN also supplies nucleosides and nucleotides for what is called the salvage pathway, the route cells use to recycle building blocks rather than synthesise them from scratch. The same authors describe A2A binding as a property they link to the DNA origin, the molecular weight and the manufacturing process (PMID 28491036).

Supporting work for that mechanism sits in cell culture rather than in people. A 2023 paper in Molecules tested a plant derived PDRN purified from the adventitious roots of Korean ginseng, and reported that it promoted proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts, acted as an agonist of the adenosine A2A receptor, and induced phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase and other signalling proteins. Those results came from skin cells and from an artificial reconstructed skin model, not from human volunteers, and most of the authors were employed by the company developing the ingredient (PMID 37959659).

Why the mechanism section is short: a plausible receptor story is the beginning of an argument, not the end of one. The 2025 systematic review of regenerative aesthetics as a whole category, which included PDRN alongside stem cell therapy, exosomes, photobiomodulation and bioactive peptides across 19 studies, named unclear molecular mechanisms and absent long term safety data as recurring problems across that entire field (Rahman et al., PMID 39198280). That criticism was aimed at the category, not at PDRN specifically.

The Strongest Human Data Is Not About Beauty

If you rank the human PDRN evidence by trial size and design quality, the top of the list is a wound healing trial in people with diabetes. This is the single most misread fact about PDRN, because those results get quoted on aesthetic clinic pages as though they were facial rejuvenation results.

A 2014 randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial run at two medical centres in Italy enrolled adults with diabetes who had hard to heal foot ulcers of Wagner grade 1 or 2. It randomised 216 patients, 110 to PDRN and 106 to placebo, and treatment ran for 8 weeks. Of those, 101 in the PDRN arm and 91 in the placebo arm completed the study. Complete ulcer healing, the primary outcome, was reported in 37.3 percent of PDRN patients (95 percent CI 28.2 to 46.3) against 18.9 percent on placebo (95 percent CI 11.4 to 26.3), P = 0.0027. The hazard ratio for ulcer closure was 2.20 (95 percent CI 1.29 to 3.75, P = 0.004), median time to complete healing was 30 days against 49 days, and the median re-epithelialised area was 82.2 percent against 49.3 percent, P below 0.001 (PMID 24483158).

That is a genuine, positive, placebo controlled result. It applies to chronic diabetic foot ulcers in adults with diabetes, treated in hospital, and it says nothing about wrinkles.

A second, much smaller Korean trial published in 2017 is often cited next to it and needs reading carefully. Twenty patients with non-healing diabetic foot ulcers were randomised to a control group of 10 and a PDRN group of 10, with all of them also receiving surgical debridement and a secondary surgical procedure such as a skin graft or local flap, so PDRN was an addition to surgery rather than a treatment on its own. Transcutaneous oxygen tension improved in the PDRN group at days 7, 14 and 28. However, the difference in vessel density between the groups was not statistically significant, P = 0.094, and complete healing was achieved in every patient in the study, including the controls (PMID 29076318).

The large placebo controlled result is in Wagner grade 1 or 2 diabetic foot ulcers, not in cosmetic skin.
The smaller 2017 trial had 10 patients per arm and PDRN was given on top of surgery.
In that smaller trial, oxygenation improved but the vessel density measure did not reach significance.
Every patient in that smaller trial healed completely, controls included, which limits what the comparison can show.

The Skin Rejuvenation Trials

The cosmetic literature is thinner, smaller, and mostly compares polynucleotide against another active ingredient rather than against a placebo. That design choice matters: when a trial reports no significant difference between PN and hyaluronic acid, that is a failure to demonstrate superiority over the comparator, not a demonstration that nothing happened.

A 2022 randomised, pair matched, active controlled split face study enrolled 27 subjects, giving each one PN filler on one side of the periorbital area and non crosslinked hyaluronic acid filler on the other. Improvements in the visual analogue scale and the global aesthetic improvement scale were not significantly different between PN and HA, and the improvement in dermal density was also not significantly different. The PN side did show higher improvement rates for roughness and pore volume, and higher improvement rates for elasticity and hydration, although the authors note those elasticity and hydration rates decreased over time in both groups. No serious adverse events were reported (Lee et al., PMID 32248707).

A 2025 open label study in acne scarring is worth quoting for the direction of its result rather than its strength. Seventeen participants with grade 2 to 5 acne scars were split across three groups, one receiving intradermal botulinum toxin, one receiving PDRN, and one receiving both. The combination group improved most on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale with a 12.0 point reduction, botulinum toxin alone gave 9.0 points, and PDRN alone gave the smallest change at 6.1 points. With roughly five or six people per group, no blinding, and a journal assigned Level of Evidence V, this is a signal to investigate rather than a finding to rely on (Park et al., PMID 40826297).

Pulling the cosmetic literature together, a 2025 systematic review searched Embase, Medline and Cochrane for primary research on polynucleotides in aesthetic medicine published in English between January 2010 and January 2024. It found nine studies, rated low and moderate quality, describing 219 patients who received PN, with variation in injection areas and techniques between them. The reviewers reported promising outcomes for wrinkles, texture and elasticity, statistically significant in several studies, with side effects generally mild and transient. They also concluded that there is limited consensus regarding optimal use and that rigorous, high quality studies are still needed to validate the effectiveness and safety of PN (Lampridou et al., PMID 39645667).

Two things about that 219 figure are worth knowing before you repeat it. The nine studies include the Pak 2014 crow feet trial, which its journal retracted in 2016 and which the review own Table 2 lists at 72 patients, so about a third of the total comes from a withdrawn paper that the review never flags. And the 27 subject split face trial described two paragraphs above is also one of the nine, so those 27 people are already inside the 219 rather than added to it. Both are checkable in the review reference list and its Table 2.

Read the conflict of interest statement on that review alongside its conclusion. One author is described as a research and development steering board member and continuing medical education tutor for the Italian manufacturer of a polynucleotide product, and another as a key opinion leader and clinical trainer for a company distributing polynucleotide medical devices from that manufacturer. The review still concluded that the evidence base is not yet strong, which arguably makes that conclusion more notable rather than less.

The Retracted Record

If you search this topic yourself you will land on several well known papers that no longer stand. This is not an obscure detail. Some of the most cited studies in polynucleotide aesthetics have been withdrawn by their journals, and a clinic page written from a 2020 reading list will still be quoting them.

Pak et al., Journal of Korean Medical Science, 2014

A phase III randomised matched pairs trial of a polynucleotide filler against a hyaluronic acid filler for crow feet wrinkles. Retracted by the journal in February 2016. The retraction notice, PMID 26839493, gives the reason in full: a reader raised concerns that the paper violated conflict of interest disclosure, the corresponding author later reported that the trial expense had been supported by the pharmaceutical company producing the filler and that one coauthor was a researcher in that company research and development centre, and the journal publication board concluded it was an impaired publication of conflict of interest by wrong disclosure and incorrect notification of the funding sponsor.

Choi et al., Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2025

A randomised matched pair study of a polycaprolactone filler against a purified polynucleotide filler in 218 participants. Flagged in PubMed as a retracted publication, with the retraction published in the same journal in 2026.

Yi et al., Skin Research and Technology, 2024

A review defining and classifying skin boosters, frequently used as a general reference for this product category. Flagged in PubMed as a retracted publication, with the retraction published in 2025.

A retraction does not prove a product does not work. It removes those specific papers from the evidence you are allowed to count. This page cites none of the three above as evidence in its own right, but one of them still reaches this page second hand, and that is worth naming plainly. The 2025 systematic review quoted earlier counts the retracted Pak 2014 crow feet trial as one of its nine studies, and the review own Table 2 records that trial at 72 patients, so roughly a third of the 219 patient total rests on a paper the journal withdrew. The review does not flag it anywhere in its text, even though it did exclude a different retracted paper at screening for exactly that reason. If a clinic or seller quotes one of these three at you, that tells you something about how recently they checked their sources.

Approved, Registered, or Just Sold

People searching for PDRN often want to know whether a regulator has signed off on it. The honest answer requires being precise about which regulator and which product, and it contains two traps worth walking through.

Two United States databases were checked for this page. A DailyMed drug name query for polydeoxyribonucleotide returned zero records, and a query for Rejuran returned zero records, against a database publication date of 7 August 2026. Searching the abbreviation itself gives a different answer, and it is the first trap. A DailyMed drug name query for PDRN returns six products, all of them over the counter cosmetic style listings: a cream, two sunscreens, a mask, an essence and a serum. A listing in that database is a registration, not an FDA approval. All six of those labels carry ingredient data, and five of them list actives that are not PDRN: sunscreen filters on the two Medicube sunscreens, niacinamide 0.3 percent and glucomannan 1 percent on the mask, hydroxyethylcellulose and glycerin on the essence, and rh-oligopeptide-1 1 percent on the Sandra Plasencia serum. The sixth is the one to read closely. BIOMICRONEEDLE PDRN CREAM declares SODIUM DNA 0.2 percent and hydrolyzed sponge 0.5 percent on its over the counter active ingredient panel, while the coded active ingredient field on that same label records silicon dioxide 0.5 percent instead. Sodium DNA is a DNA sodium salt, the ingredient class these products are sold on, and the Sandra Plasencia label writes Sodium DNA (PDRN) into its inactive ingredient list as well. So the claim that the word only ever sits in the brand name is not true. What is true is narrower: none of these six is an FDA approved drug, a listing is a registration, and on the one label that does declare a DNA active the panel text and the coded ingredient field contradict each other.

Then a full text search of openFDA drug labelling for the word polydeoxyribonucleotide returned exactly one product, which looks at first glance like an FDA approved PDRN drug. It is not. The match is Defitelio, generic name defibrotide sodium, an intravenous human prescription drug from Jazz Pharmaceuticals under application NDA208114. The word matched inside the label description field, not an active ingredient field, because defibrotide sodium happens to have the chemical name polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium salt. That label describes it as derived from porcine intestinal tissue with a mean weighted molecular weight of 14 to 19 kDa.

Pig intestine, not salmon sperm, and a different size class. The 2017 pharmacology review makes the same separation from the other direction, stating that defibrotide is a different oligonucleotide mixture with a different molecular weight and a DNA of different origin, and that it does not share the wound healing stimulating effects of PDRN (PMID 28491036). So a database hit for the word polydeoxyribonucleotide is not evidence that aesthetic PDRN is FDA approved. It is a name collision.

Everything in this section describes the United States only. It is not a global statement. The regulatory position in Vietnam, in Korea where most of these products originate, and in Italy where the pharmacology work was done, was not verified for this page, and a claim about any of those would need checking against that country own regulator rather than against a US database.

Serums, Creams and Ampoules

Most PDRN sold over the counter in Vietnam is topical: an ampoule, a serum, a sheet mask or a cream. The trials described above almost all used injections, delivered by clinicians, which puts the ingredient directly where it is meant to act. A topical product has to cross the outer skin barrier first, and DNA fragments in the size range described for PDRN are large molecules by skincare standards.

The most direct comparison found for this page is a 2018 study in mice. Sixty mice with full thickness skin defects were divided into four groups: salmon trout derived PDRN injection, chum salmon derived PDRN injection, a chum salmon derived PDRN cream, and a normal saline soaked dressing as control. The two injection groups showed the greatest wound healing effect and scored similarly to each other, followed by the cream group, followed by saline (PMID 29609429).

Two things follow. The cream did outperform plain saline in that model, so a topical is not automatically inert. But it ranked below both injections, this was a rodent wound healing model rather than a human face, and no human trial in the sources searched here shows a topical PDRN product matching an injected one for any cosmetic outcome. If a serum is marketed using the diabetic foot ulcer trial numbers, those numbers came from injections given in an Italian hospital.

Questions Worth Asking in Vietnam

PDRN and polynucleotide treatments are widely advertised across clinics in Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Da Nang, usually under Korean brand names and usually priced per session. No verifiable published price range for Vietnam was found while researching this page, so none is quoted here. A number invented for the sake of completeness would be worse than no number.

What is useful is knowing which questions separate a clinic that can answer from one that cannot. These are questions to raise with a licensed doctor or pharmacist, not steps to take on your own.

Is the product PN or PDRN, and can the clinic explain the difference without reaching for marketing copy?
What is the product registration status in Vietnam, and can that registration be shown rather than described?
Which specific published study is being quoted for the result promised, and was that study in humans or in animals?
Was that study in facial skin, or in diabetic foot ulcers, which is where the strongest data sits?
Is the person injecting a licensed medical practitioner, and what is the plan if a reaction occurs?
For anyone with a fish allergy: the source material is salmon or trout DNA, which is a direct question for a doctor.

The counterfeit question sits underneath all of this. Because these are imported, brand driven and expensive, they are exactly the product profile that attracts fakes. This page did not test any product sold in Vietnam and makes no claim about the authenticity of any particular seller.

Where Topical Peptides Fit

PDRN and polynucleotide are DNA fragment mixtures. Peptides are short chains of amino acids. They are different classes of ingredient with different research bases, and they get shelved together mainly because both are sold under the heading of skin repair.

The practical difference for someone reading a product label is delivery. The PDRN evidence that carries weight comes from injections given by clinicians. Several peptides used in skincare are studied in topical form, which is the format most people can actually buy and use at home. The copper peptide GHK-Cu is the best known of them for skin repair and collagen support, and there is a separate profile covering GHK-Cu in topical form specifically.

The simple version: PDRN is an in clinic, injected treatment with its best evidence in wound healing rather than in cosmetics. If what you want is an at home routine with a longer human track record, the proven ingredients are the boring ones, and retinol is still the one with the deepest evidence base.

The Short Version

PDRN is polydeoxyribonucleotide, a mixture of DNA fragments purified from salmon trout or chum salmon sperm DNA, described at 50 to 1,500 kDa.
PN and PDRN are not synonyms: a 2025 review describes PN as longer DNA fragments tied to matrix remodelling and PDRN as shorter sequences tied to adenosine receptor activation.
The proposed mechanism is adenosine A2A receptor engagement plus nucleotide salvage, supported mainly by cell culture and animal work.
The strongest human result is a 216 patient placebo controlled trial in Wagner grade 1 or 2 diabetic foot ulcers, not a cosmetic trial.
A 2025 systematic review of PN in aesthetics found nine studies of low and moderate quality covering 219 treated patients and called for rigorous trials; one of those nine is the retracted Pak 2014 trial, 72 of the 219, which the review does not flag.
Three prominent papers in this area, including a phase III polynucleotide filler trial, have been retracted by their journals.
DailyMed queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide and for Rejuran both returned zero records; a query for the abbreviation PDRN returns six over the counter listings, five of them with actives such as sunscreen filters, niacinamide or an oligopeptide and one declaring sodium DNA 0.2 percent on its panel, all of them registrations rather than approvals, and the single openFDA text match is defibrotide, a different drug from porcine tissue.
Topical PDRN ranked below injected PDRN in a mouse wound model, and no human trial found here shows a cream matching an injection.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is PDRN?+

PDRN stands for polydeoxyribonucleotide. It is not a single molecule. A 2017 review in Frontiers in Pharmacology describes it as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights between 50 and 1,500 kDa, obtained through a controlled purification and sterilisation process from the sperm DNA of Oncorhynchus mykiss (salmon trout) or Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon). The authors state that the process is designed to leave no active protein or peptide behind, because those are what would trigger an immune reaction (Squadrito et al., Front Pharmacol 2017, PMID 28491036; a corrigendum to this review was published in 2022, PMID 36479198).

What is the difference between PDRN and polynucleotide?+

They are related but not interchangeable, and the difference is length. A 2025 review in Pharmaceutics states that polynucleotide (PN) is composed of longer DNA fragments and plays a key role in extracellular matrix remodelling, while PDRN is composed of relatively shorter oligonucleotide sequences than PN and works through adenosine receptor activation plus support of nucleotide synthesis via the salvage and de novo pathways (Kim, Pharmaceutics 2025, PMID 40871045). In clinics and product marketing the two names are often used as if they meant the same thing, which is where most of the confusion comes from.

Is PDRN approved by the FDA?+

No FDA approved aesthetic PDRN drug was found in the United States databases checked for this page, but the searches need reading carefully. A DailyMed drug name query for polydeoxyribonucleotide returned zero records, and a query for Rejuran returned zero records, against a database publication date of 7 August 2026. A drug name query for the abbreviation PDRN returned six products, all over the counter cosmetic style listings, a cream, two sunscreens, a mask, an essence and a serum. A listing there is a registration, not an approval. All six of those labels carry ingredient data. Five list actives that are not PDRN: sunscreen filters on the two Medicube sunscreens, niacinamide and glucomannan on the mask, hydroxyethylcellulose and glycerin on the essence, and rh-oligopeptide-1 on the Sandra Plasencia serum. The sixth is the exception worth knowing about: BIOMICRONEEDLE PDRN CREAM declares SODIUM DNA 0.2 percent and hydrolyzed sponge 0.5 percent on its over the counter active ingredient panel, while the coded active ingredient field of that same label records silicon dioxide 0.5 percent instead. Sodium DNA is a DNA sodium salt, which is the ingredient class these products are sold on, and a second label writes Sodium DNA (PDRN) into its inactive ingredient list. So the word is not only a brand name here. It is still a registration rather than an FDA approval, and on that one label the panel text and the coded field do not agree with each other. A full text search of openFDA drug labelling returned exactly one product, and it is not aesthetic PDRN: it is Defitelio (defibrotide sodium, NDA208114, Jazz Pharmaceuticals), an intravenous prescription drug whose description field gives its chemical name as polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium salt, derived from porcine intestinal tissue. These findings describe the United States only. Regulatory status in Vietnam, Korea, Italy or anywhere else was not verified here.

What is the best evidence for PDRN in humans?+

It is in diabetic foot ulcers, not in cosmetic skin treatment. A 2014 randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial at two centres in Italy randomised 216 adults with hard to heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 diabetic foot ulcers, 110 to PDRN and 106 to placebo, over 8 weeks. Complete healing was reported in 37.3 percent of the PDRN group (95 percent CI 28.2 to 46.3) against 18.9 percent on placebo (95 percent CI 11.4 to 26.3), P = 0.0027 (Squadrito et al., J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014, PMID 24483158). That result belongs to that population and that wound type. It is not a facial rejuvenation finding.

Do PDRN creams and serums work the same as the injections?+

There is no human trial in the sources searched here that shows a topical PDRN product matching an injected one. The closest direct comparison is a mouse study: 60 mice with full thickness skin defects were assigned to salmon derived PDRN injection, chum salmon derived PDRN injection, a PDRN cream, or a saline soaked dressing. The two injection groups scored highest and similar to each other, the cream came next, and saline was last (Lee et al., Arch Craniofac Surg 2018, PMID 29609429). That is rodent data, and a rank order in mice is not proof of a benefit on a human face.

How strong is the evidence for polynucleotide skin boosters overall?+

Weaker than the marketing suggests. A 2025 systematic review in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology found nine studies of low and moderate quality, covering 219 patients who received PN, with wide variation in injection areas and techniques. The authors reported promising results for wrinkles, texture and elasticity with mild and transient side effects, but concluded that there is limited consensus on optimal use and that rigorous, high quality studies are still needed (Lampridou et al., J Cosmet Dermatol 2025, PMID 39645667). Read that 219 carefully. One of the nine studies is the Pak 2014 crow feet trial, retracted by its journal in 2016 and listed in the review own Table 2 at 72 patients, so about a third of the total comes from a withdrawn paper the review does not flag. Another of the nine is the 27 subject split face trial (PMID 32248707), so those 27 patients are already counted inside the 219. Two of the four authors declared ties to a polynucleotide manufacturer or distributor.

References

Squadrito F, Bitto A, Irrera N, et al. Pharmacological activity and clinical use of PDRN. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:224. Review. Corrigendum published 2022, PMID 36479198. PMID 28491036
Kim ST. Comparison of polynucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide in dermatology: molecular mechanisms and clinical perspectives. Pharmaceutics. 2025;17(8):1024. Review. PMID 40871045
Squadrito F, Bitto A, Altavilla D, et al. The effect of PDRN, an adenosine receptor A2A agonist, on the healing of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: results of a clinical trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled; 216 patients randomised (110 PDRN, 106 placebo), two centres in Italy, Wagner grade 1 or 2 ulcers. PMID 24483158
Kim S, Kim J, Choi J, Jeong W, Kwon S. Polydeoxyribonucleotide improves peripheral tissue oxygenation and accelerates angiogenesis in diabetic foot ulcers. Arch Plast Surg. 2017;44(6):482-489. Prospective randomised controlled trial, 20 patients (10 per arm), Korea; PDRN given alongside surgical debridement and secondary surgery. PMID 29076318
Lee YJ, Kim HT, Lee YJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of polynucleotide and hyaluronic acid fillers on periocular rejuvenation: a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. 27 subjects, active controlled against non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid. PMID 32248707
Lampridou S, Bassett S, Cavallini M, Christopoulos G. The effectiveness of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(2):e16721. Nine studies of low and moderate quality, 219 patients who received PN. Its reference 12 is the retracted Pak 2014 trial (PMID 25473210), recorded in the review Table 2 at 72 patients with no retraction flag anywhere in the text; its reference 19 is the Lee 2022 split face trial listed above (PMID 32248707), so those 27 patients are inside the 219. Two authors declared ties to a polynucleotide manufacturer or distributor. PMID 39645667
Rahman E, Carruthers JDA, Rao P, et al. Regenerative aesthetics: a genuine frontier or just a facet of regenerative medicine: a systematic review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025;49(1):341-355. 19 studies across the whole regenerative aesthetics category, of which PDRN is one intervention among several. PMID 39198280
Park MH, Hwang SK, Hwang JK, Chua D, Yi KH. Air-botulinum neurotoxin and polydeoxyribonucleotide injections for acne scar treatment. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025;49(23):6668-6674. Open label, 17 participants across three groups, journal assigned Level of Evidence V. PMID 40826297
Lee JH, Han JW, Byun JH, et al. Comparison of wound healing effects between Oncorhynchus keta-derived polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) and Oncorhynchus mykiss-derived PDRN. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2018;19(1):20-34. Animal study, 60 mice, full thickness skin defects, injections versus cream versus saline dressing. PMID 29609429
Lee KS, Lee S, Wang H, et al. Analysis of skin regeneration and barrier-improvement efficacy of polydeoxyribonucleotide isolated from Panax ginseng (C.A. Mey.) adventitious root. Molecules. 2023;28(21):7240. Cell culture and reconstructed artificial skin model only; most authors employed by the developing company. PMID 37959659
Notice of retraction: Pak CS, et al. A phase III, randomized, double-blind, matched-pairs, active-controlled clinical trial and preclinical animal study to compare the durability, efficacy and safety between polynucleotide filler and hyaluronic acid filler in the correction of crow feet. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(2):330. Retraction notice; the reason stated in the notice is a conflict of interest disclosure violation, with the trial expense supported by the company producing the filler and a company employed coauthor not disclosed. PMID 26839493
Choi SY, Koh YG, Yoo KH, et al. A randomized, participant- and evaluator-blinded, matched-pair, prospective study comparing the safety and efficacy between polycaprolactone and polynucleotide fillers in the correction of crow feet. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(1):e16576. Indexed in PubMed as a retracted publication; cited here only as a retraction, not as evidence. PMID 39313949
Yi KH, Winayanuwattikun W, Kim SY, et al. Skin boosters: definitions and varied classifications. Skin Res Technol. 2024;30(3):e13627. Indexed in PubMed as a retracted publication; cited here only as a retraction, not as evidence. PMID 38481069
US National Library of Medicine, DailyMed drug names service. Queried on the drug_name field for polydeoxyribonucleotide and for Rejuran; both returned zero records. A query for PDRN returned 8 name records covering 6 distinct over the counter products: BIOMICRONEEDLE PDRN CREAM, MEDICUBE PDRN HYDRATING UV SERUM, MEDICUBE PDRN SILKY SUNSCREEN, PDRN PINK COLLAGEN MASK, PDRN PINK PEPTIDE ESSENCE and SANDRA PLASENCIA PDRN REJUVENATING SERUM. All six SPLs carry ingredient data. Their coded active ingredients are homosalate, octocrylene, octisalate and ensulizole (hydrating UV serum); homosalate, octocrylene, octisalate and avobenzone (silky sunscreen); niacinamide 0.3 percent and glucomannan 1 percent (mask); hydroxyethylcellulose and glycerin (essence); rh-oligopeptide-1 1 percent (Sandra Plasencia serum); and silicon dioxide 0.5 percent (BioMicroneedle cream). The BioMicroneedle label is inconsistent with itself: its OTC active ingredient panel text reads SODIUM DNA 0.2%(0.2ml/100ml) and HYDROLYZED SPONGE 0.5%(0.5ml/100ml). The Sandra Plasencia label lists Sodium DNA(PDRN) among its inactive ingredients. All six have an openFDA label record, retrieved by set id on 8 August 2026. Four of them also carry a populated openfda metadata block, which is why a brand name search returns four rather than six; the mask and the essence are reachable only by set id. Database publication date 7 August 2026. dailymed.nlm.nih.gov
US Food and Drug Administration, openFDA drug labelling API. Full text search for polydeoxyribonucleotide returned one product, Defitelio (defibrotide sodium), Jazz Pharmaceuticals, application NDA208114; the term appeared in the label description field, not in an active ingredient field. Data refresh dated 7 August 2026. open.fda.gov

Note on sourcing: every figure on this page is tied to one of the records above and was read from the abstract or the database field named, not from a secondary summary. Animal and cell culture results are labelled as such in the same sentence that uses them. Where a result is restricted to a population, a wound type or a country, that restriction is stated in the same sentence as the number. Where a source qualified its own finding, the qualification is carried with it. Every candidate reference was checked against the PubMed publication type field for retraction before use, and the three retracted papers are listed only as retractions. No price for Vietnam and no Vietnamese regulatory status are quoted here, because neither was verified in a source that could be checked.