SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Regeneration in Aesthetic Medicine: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Clinical Boundaries.

Barbosa AP.

Systematic Review on Skin Aging, Immune Modulation, published in J Cosmet Dermatol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
J Cosmet Dermatol (2026)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
41572953
DOI
10.1111/jocd.70669

Abstract (original English)

Regeneration has emerged as a key concept in aesthetic medicine as the field evolves from predominantly volumetric correction toward biologically oriented strategies aimed at improving tissue quality, function, and long-term structural integrity. However, the widespread use of the term "regenerative" has often been used without biological precision, leading to conceptual overlap with repair, remodeling, and biostimulation. A critical evaluation of the biological basis and clinical evidence supporting regenerative claims is needed. To critically synthesize current biological, translational, and clinical evidence related to skin regeneration in aesthetic medicine, with emphasis on extracellular matrix remodeling, immune modulation, mechanotransduction, and dermal-hypodermal integration, and to contextualize the regenerative potential and limitations of commonly used biomaterials. A narrative review was conducted based on experimental studies, translational research, narrative and systematic reviews, and clinical investigations cited in the reference set. Evidence was qualitatively analyzed focusing on mechanisms of action, tissue-level interactions, immune responses, extracellular matrix dynamics, involvement of subcutaneous adipose compartments, and durability of clinical outcomes. Cutaneous regeneration is a multilevel functional process driven by coordinated extracellular matr

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
HumansRegenerationExtracellular MatrixCosmetic TechniquesBiocompatible MaterialsMechanotransduction, CellularSkinSkin AgingSkin Physiological PhenomenaRejuvenation
Skin AgingImmune Modulation
View on PubMedDOI

Related research