Rejuran Healer, i, S and HB Plus: How the Four Polynucleotide Formulations Differ

Published: 8 September 2026

Rejuran is a range of polynucleotide (PN) injectables from the Korean manufacturer PharmaResearch, based on purified salmon DNA and used to treat skin quality rather than volume. The range now spans four formulations, so the relevant clinical question is no longer whether to use PN but which formulation matches the tissue, the treatment area and the objective. This article compares Rejuran Healer, Rejuran i, Rejuran S and HB Plus.

What are Rejuran polynucleotides used for?

Across the range, Rejuran is used for skin quality rather than volume: dermal density, elasticity, texture, fine lines and scarring. Which of those objectives a given syringe serves depends on the formulation, because the four products are built for different tissue and different treatment areas rather than as different strengths of the same effect.

In short: Rejuvenation PN, known internationally as Rejuran Healer, covers general facial skin quality across larger treatment fields. Rejuran i is used for the thin skin around the eyes. Rejuran S is used for atrophic and depressed scars, most often post-acne. Rejuran HB Plus is used where hydration is an objective alongside regeneration, since it combines PN with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid.

In practice the clinical presentation, not the brand, determines the choice. Generalised photoageing, under-eye crepiness and post-acne scarring are three different indications, and applying one formulation across all three is where results become inconsistent. The sections below set out each formulation, the evidence behind it, and how the four compare.

What is Rejuran, and what defines the PN range?

Rejuran, manufactured by PharmaResearch, has more than a decade of use behind it within Korean aesthetic dermatology, and the core product is known internationally as Rejuran Healer. The range is based on highly purified salmon DNA — long-chain polynucleotides processed using the manufacturer’s proprietary DOT technology — and the formulations differ from one another in concentration, rheological profile, composition and intended treatment area. Rather than applying one PN product across every indication, the portfolio separates them.

From a treatment-planning perspective, the important distinction is not simply the presence of PN. Polynucleotide preparations have been investigated for their role in supporting tissue repair, fibroblast activity and extracellular matrix remodelling, and reviews of clinical practice describe improvements in skin texture, elasticity and hydration across the category ^[1] . Proposed mechanisms vary with polymer characteristics, and the distinction between polynucleotides and polydeoxyribonucleotides matters here more than the shared origin suggests; and much of the mechanistic literature derives from work on polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) rather than on the longer polynucleotide chains used in PN devices such as Rejuran ^[2] . What follows from that is practical: within a single brand, the meaningful differences are the ones written into each formulation.

Across the wider polynucleotide range , this creates a portfolio in which product selection can be based on three questions. What tissue is being treated? What is the primary treatment objective? And which formulation characteristics are appropriate for that area? Answered in that order, the questions resolve most cases without any need to compare concentrations directly, and they hold whether the patient presents for general skin quality, for the periorbital region or for a scarred area.

Why do formulation differences matter in polynucleotide treatment?

Two variables carry most of the clinical weight across a PN range: concentration and viscosity. Concentration relates to how much polynucleotide is delivered per unit volume, while viscosity governs how the gel behaves once placed — how far it spreads, how superficially it can be positioned without becoming visible, and how well it stays where it was intended to stay. Neither variable is a measure of quality; each is a match to a tissue.

The evidence base reflects this indication-by-indication picture rather than a single global claim. A systematic review of PN in esthetic medicine identified nine studies covering 219 patients, reporting improvements in wrinkles, skin texture and elasticity while noting that the available data are of low to moderate quality and heterogeneous in design ^[3] . A more recent systematic review of randomised trials, covering seven studies and 183 participants across rejuvenation, scar prevention and wound healing, reaches a similar conclusion: consistent direction of effect, no serious treatment-related adverse events, and a need for larger and better-powered studies ^[4] .

Read together, those syntheses support a measured position rather than a promotional one: polynucleotides are a credible regenerative option with a favourable tolerability profile, and their results are best described as progressive across a course of sessions. That is also why formulation selection matters more than product loyalty. Where the published data are strongest — the periorbital region, atrophic scarring — they are strongest for a particular kind of preparation used in a particular way.

Rejuran Healer (Rejuvenation PN): which patients does the core formulation suit?

Supplied as 2 × 2 ml, Rejuvenation PN — marketed in many markets as Rejuran Healer — is the core formulation of the range and is positioned for broader treatment of facial skin quality. Its role is particularly relevant where the objective includes reduced dermal density and elasticity, fine lines, enlarged pores, photoaged skin or post-acne texture irregularities. Unlike the more specialised products in the portfolio, it is intended for treatment across larger areas and may also be incorporated into protocols for the neck and dorsal hands.

Published support for full-face PN rejuvenation is modest in scale but consistent in direction. A small case series of long-chain polynucleotide filler used for skin rejuvenation documented changes in pore appearance, skin thickness, wrinkles and sagging across five patients ^[5] . With a series that size the finding cannot be overstated, but it aligns with the broader reviews and with what the formulation is designed to do — distribute a regenerative stimulus evenly across a wide treatment field rather than concentrate it in one place. Treatment positioning: full-face PN regeneration and broader improvement of dermal quality.

In protocol terms, this formulation is usually the one that establishes the treatment rhythm for a patient. Courses are typically built as a series of sessions spaced two to four weeks apart, with the treatment field extended to the neck or hands within the same appointment where the presentation justifies it. Because assessment is made across the whole field rather than at a single point, standardised photography before the first session is worth the two minutes it costs.

Rejuran i for Under Eyes: How Does It Differ from Rejuran Healer?

The periorbital region presents a different treatment environment. Thin skin and limited tissue thickness mean that formulations designed for broader facial treatment are not necessarily optimal here, and the consequence of a mismatch usually shows as visible product or prolonged swelling rather than as absence of effect. Rejuran i addresses this through a lower-viscosity profile in a 1 × 1 ml presentation, positioned for fine lines, crepiness and reduced dermal density in the infraorbital region and at the lateral canthus. It is the formulation patients are usually asking about when they describe under-eye texture or tired-looking skin.

The periorbital region is also one of the most established clinical applications of injectable PN. In a randomised, double-blind, split-face trial, 27 subjects received PN on one side and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid on the other across three sessions at two-week intervals; the PN side showed higher improvement rates for parameters including elasticity, hydration, roughness and pore volume, although not all differences reached statistical significance ^[6] . The formulation is therefore not simply a smaller-volume version of a facial PN treatment; it is adapted to the anatomy. Treatment positioning: targeted PN treatment where improving periorbital skin quality is the primary objective.

Placement matters as much as product choice in this region. The tissue tolerates very little superficially deposited material, and the same volume that disappears without trace across the cheek can remain visible under the lower eyelid for several days. A lower-viscosity formulation reduces that margin of error, but it does not remove the need for conservative volumes per point and for setting expectations about short-lived swelling after each session.

Rejuran S for Acne Scars: How Does It Differ from Other Rejuran Formulations?

Rejuran S occupies a very different position within the portfolio. Its higher-viscosity profile, in a 1 × 1 ml presentation, is intended for localised treatment rather than full-face application, with particular relevance to atrophic and depressed scars, most commonly post-acne. Scar treatment requires a different approach from general skin-quality improvement: instead of distributing PN across a larger field, the product is placed into individual scarred areas where a more cohesive gel can be retained beneath a bound-down base.

The rationale for using PN in this indication rests on randomised data. In a prospective, randomised, double-blind study of highly purified polynucleotide against placebo in moderate to severe atrophic acne scars, the PN group showed significant improvement against baseline at one and three months ^[7] . That study used a different PN device, so it supports the mechanism and the indication rather than any claim about a specific product; case series describing this brand across various scar types add supporting observation at a lower level of evidence ^[8] . Treatment positioning: localised PN treatment for atrophic and depressed scar areas.

Scar work is also where PN is most often combined with other modalities rather than used alone. Subcision to release tethered scar bases, or fractional device sessions to address surrounding texture, are commonly sequenced with PN placement in the same overall plan, with intervals set so that inflammation from one stage does not obscure the assessment of the next. Patients should understand from the outset that scar remodelling is measured over months.

Rejuran HB Plus: PN + Hyaluronic Acid for Skin Quality and Hydration

Rejuran HB Plus introduces another variable into PN treatment planning: hydration. The formulation combines polynucleotides with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid and lidocaine in a 1 × 1 ml presentation. This makes it particularly relevant where reduced skin quality is accompanied by dehydration and both objectives are intended to be addressed within the same approach, with typical treatment areas including the face, neck and décolleté.

The addition of HA differentiates HB Plus from the PN-only formulations, since the two components act on different timescales: hyaluronic acid binds water immediately, while the polynucleotide component is assessed across a course. Lidocaine is included to reduce injection discomfort, which is relevant in zones where a full treatment field is being covered. The distinction from Rejuvenation PN is therefore primarily one of objective — Rejuvenation PN is the broader regeneration option, while HB Plus becomes relevant where hydration forms an explicit part of the protocol. Treatment positioning: PN-based regeneration combined with additional hydration.

HB Plus also sits closest to the boundary with hyaluronic acid skin-quality products, and it is worth being explicit about that boundary in planning. An HA-based booster addresses hydration as its primary objective; HB Plus addresses hydration alongside a regenerative component, within one injection pass. Where hydration alone is the finding, a dedicated booster remains the simpler choice, and the combination formulation is reserved for presentations where both deficits are documented.

Rejuran Healer vs Rejuran i vs Rejuran S vs HB Plus: portfolio comparison

Set side by side, the four formulations show why the range is better understood as a portfolio of differentiated PN products than as several versions of the same injectable. Each row below answers a different clinical question, and the differences in composition and rheology are what make those answers distinct rather than interchangeable.

Formulation	Composition / profile	Primary treatment area	Main treatment objective
Rejuran Rejuvenation PN	PN, medium viscosity; 2 × 2 ml	Face, neck, dorsal hands	Broader skin regeneration and dermal quality
Rejuran i	PN, lower viscosity; 1 × 1 ml	Periorbital area	Thin, crepey skin and fine lines
Rejuran S	PN, high viscosity; 1 × 1 ml	Localised scar areas	Atrophic and depressed scars
Rejuran HB Plus	PN + non-cross-linked HA + lidocaine; 1 × 1 ml	Face, neck, décolleté	Regeneration combined with hydration

The pattern the table makes visible is that viscosity, not concentration, is the variable doing most of the differentiating work across the range. A lower-viscosity gel is what makes periorbital placement predictable, a more cohesive one is what keeps product beneath a scar base, and a medium profile is what allows even distribution across a full facial field. Composition adds the fourth position, where hyaluronic acid and lidocaine change the objective rather than the rheology.

Exact concentrations and volumes should always be read from current manufacturer documentation rather than from secondary sources, since presentations are periodically revised and figures quoted in circulation are not always up to date. Current specifications and pack sizes for all four references are listed on the Rejuran brand page , alongside availability.

Where does Rejuran fit into a layered treatment plan?

PN treatment does not necessarily replace structural correction, hydration-focused procedures or surface work. Its role is better considered within a layered strategy, and a useful framework separates planning into three broad levels. Where volume loss, contour or deeper tissue support is the primary concern, treatment may begin with appropriately selected HA fillers or with options from the structural biostimulator range .

The regeneration level is where the core Rejuran formulations sit. Rejuvenation PN addresses broader facial skin quality, Rejuran i provides a formulation adapted to the periorbital region, and Rejuran S offers a targeted option for scarred tissue. In combined protocols these sessions are commonly scheduled two to four weeks after structural work rather than in the same visit, which keeps post-injection oedema from confounding the assessment of either stage.

Texture, hydration and superficial skin quality can subsequently be addressed through mesotherapy, device-based procedures, formulations such as HB Plus where hydration is part of the objective, or products from the skin booster range . The same logic governs the choice between mechanisms at the structural level, which is set out in our guide to choosing between PLLA, CaHA and polynucleotides . This framework shifts product selection away from treating PN as a single category and towards choosing a formulation according to layer, tissue and clinical objective — which is a different conversation from choosing a brand.

How long do results last, and what should patients expect afterwards?

Polynucleotide results are progressive rather than immediate. Published protocols across the category generally use a series of three sessions spaced two to four weeks apart, with assessment made at the end of the series rather than after a single treatment. Maintenance is commonly scheduled at four to six month intervals, adjusted to the presentation and to how the tissue responded to the initial course.

Durability is the weakest part of the evidence base and should be described as such. Follow-up in the available randomised studies is measured in weeks to a few months rather than years ^[4] , so any figure quoted for how long results persist is an extrapolation from clinical observation, not a trial endpoint. Framing maintenance as part of the protocol from the first consultation avoids the disappointment that follows an overstated duration.

Recovery is typically short. Reported reactions across the literature are mild and transient — erythema, small papules at injection points, occasional bruising — generally settling within one to three days, with papules in thin periorbital skin sometimes persisting a little longer. Standard post-injection advice applies: avoid make-up over injection points for the rest of the day, avoid heat, saunas and strenuous exercise for 24 to 48 hours, and defer treatment in the presence of active infection at the site, pregnancy or breastfeeding, or known hypersensitivity to any component, in line with the manufacturer’s instructions for use.

Which Rejuran to Choose: Healer, i, S or HB Plus?

The practical differences across the portfolio reduce to a relatively simple decision framework. For broader facial regeneration and reduced dermal quality, Rejuran Rejuvenation PN represents the core option, and it is usually the reference point around which the rest of a protocol is built. Where the treatment field is the whole face, its 2 ml presentation is what makes even distribution practical.

For thin periorbital skin, Rejuran i provides the lower-viscosity formulation adapted to that region, and it is frequently used in the same session as the facial product rather than as an alternative to it. Where the target is a localised atrophic scar, Rejuran S provides the more cohesive, higher-viscosity option, and it combines readily with subcision or fractional device work within the same treatment plan.

And where dehydration accompanies reduced skin quality, Rejuran HB Plus combines PN with non-cross-linked HA within a single formulation, which is the relevant choice when both objectives belong to the same protocol. The result is not four interchangeable PN products, but four formulations occupying different positions within treatment planning.

FAQ

What is the main difference between Rejuran Rejuvenation PN and Rejuran i?

Rejuvenation PN is positioned for broader facial and skin-quality treatment, whereas Rejuran i has a reduced viscosity profile and is specifically developed for the thin skin of the periorbital region, including the infraorbital area and lateral canthus.

Which Rejuran formulation is intended for acne scars?

Rejuran S is the targeted, higher-viscosity formulation within the range. It is positioned for atrophic and depressed scars, particularly post-acne scarring, and is intended for localised placement rather than full-face treatment.

Does Rejuran HB Plus contain hyaluronic acid?

Yes. HB Plus combines polynucleotides with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid and lidocaine. It is positioned for protocols in which both regeneration and hydration are treatment objectives within the same formulation.

Are all Rejuran products intended for full-face treatment?

No, and this is one of the important distinctions within the range. Rejuvenation PN is positioned for broader treatment areas, while Rejuran i is adapted to the periorbital region and Rejuran S is intended for targeted treatment of scarred areas.

How long do the results of a Rejuran course last?

Protocols typically involve three sessions two to four weeks apart, with maintenance every four to six months. Long-term durability data are limited, so duration is best described from clinical observation rather than as a fixed figure.

What is the difference between PN and PDRN?

Both derive from purified DNA, but polynucleotides are longer chains than polydeoxyribonucleotides. Chain length influences viscosity and handling, and most published mechanistic work concerns PDRN rather than the longer PN chains.

Is Rejuran suitable for patients with a fish allergy?

The polynucleotides are highly purified and residual protein content is minimal, but a documented fish or seafood allergy should be recorded and discussed, and the manufacturer instructions for use consulted before treatment.

What downtime follows a Rejuran treatment?

Reported reactions are mild and transient: erythema, small papules at injection points and occasional bruising, usually resolving within one to three days. Papules in thin periorbital skin can take slightly longer to settle.

References

1. Lee KWA, Chan KWL, Lee A, et al. Polynucleotides in aesthetic medicine: a review of current practices and perceived effectiveness. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(15):8224. DOI
2. Galeano M, Pallio G, Irrera N, et al. Polydeoxyribonucleotide: a promising biological platform to accelerate impaired skin wound healing. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14(11):1103. DOI
3. Lampridou S, et al. The effectiveness of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025. DOI
4. Alhussain AM, et al. Polynucleotides and polydeoxyribonucleotides for skin rejuvenation, postoperative scar prevention, and wound healing: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Cureus. 2026. PubMed
5. Park KY, Seok J, Rho NK, Kim BJ, Kim MN. Long-chain polynucleotide filler for skin rejuvenation: efficacy and complications in five patients. Dermatol Ther. 2016;29(1):37–40. DOI
6. 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. DOI
7. Araco A, Araco F. Preliminary prospective and randomized study of highly purified polynucleotide vs placebo in treatment of moderate to severe acne scars. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(7):NP866–NP874. DOI
8. Kim MJ, Wan J, Oksana L, et al. Polynucleotide-based treatments for various facial scars including combat injuries. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024;35(1):2426626. DOI

Product composition data follow the manufacturer’s documentation. For professional use only.