#14

Radiesse — nanohydroxilappatite. I don’t know if it’s original and my strong suspicion is it isn’t. But it works the best for me of anything else I’ve tried. You can dilute it with saline water in 1:1 or 1:2 ratio and infuse with DEP. I also like her NCFT 135 HA a lot. And her Cytocare, but not quite as well. I didn’t like her Sculptra. I think it’s a completely fake product, just hyaluronic acid. I don’t like it contains PLLA so I intend to buy the original and see for myself.

2 Likes
#15

She’s sent a few items already and will share the full catalog tomorrow. My hunch is they’re likely not originals too, hopefully at least decent copycats. I’ll compare her prices with what my husband pays through his office suppliers. For Radiesse, his price is €84 per 1.5 ml (with or without lidocaine), while hers is $45, about half, but it may not be worth it if it isn’t genuine CaHA…

Have you tried DEP with hyperdilute Radiesse? Does it actually work? I did some digging and I’m not convinced. I watched the video above, but they don’t disclose that the photos shown aren’t from hyperdilute Radiesse infusion alone, they’re from injections combined with DEP exosome treatment. I found the study… But this guy https://www.instagram.com/leonardomedicine/ seems convinced.

This post Amanda Park | MSN, RN on Instagram: "Swipe and enjoy this before and after 🤩 DEP Infusion with Radiesse: This treatment uses advanced electro-delivery (DEP) technology to infuse Radiesse just below the skin — no needles, no downtime! 💆‍♀️⁣ Benefits: ✔️ Firmer, lifted skin ✔️ Brighter, more even tone ✔️ Collagen boost over time ✔️ No needles, minimal downtime⁣ ⁣ Your skin will thank you ✨ 📍Book your session today! Tap the link in bio or DM me 💌 \#depinfusiontherapy #RadiesseGlow #SkinRevive #CollagenBoost #AestheticTreatments" seems a bit missleading as it is probably immediatly after, which means it is just plump skin from saline.

Impeccable Aesthetics - 📍Honolulu | Kaneohe | Botox | Filler | on Instagram: "✨ Neck Rejuvenation Transformation ✨ Hybrid filler (Radiesse + HA) + DEP (Dermoelectroporation) infusion of hyperdilute Radiesse = smoother, firmer, youthful-looking neck. ✔️ Improves texture ✔️ Softens fine lines ✔️ Stimulates collagen for long-term results 📍 Only at Impeccable Aesthetics #Radiesse #HyperdiluteRadiesse #RadiesseInfusion #HybridFiller #DEP #Dermoelectroporation #DEPinfusion #NeckRejuvenation #NeckRejuvenationTransformation #CollagenBooster #SkinTightening #HawaiiAesthetics #ImpeccableAesthetics #MedspaLife #GlowingSkin #YouthfulSkin #HydrationBoost #CollagenStimulator #SkinRejuvenation #AestheticInjector #NaturalResults #MerzAesthetics #Belotero #Merz #RadiesseResults #BeautyInnovations #DermalFiller #AestheticsClinic #SkinGoals" and this amazing result is also a combination of injectable and DEP.

Impeccable Aesthetics - 📍Honolulu | Kaneohe | Botox | Filler | on Instagram: "From loose and crepey to smooth and defined. ✨. This is 7 weeks since DEP and 3 months since ultherapy prime. This transformation was achieved using Dermoelectroporation (DEP) combined with Radiesse (Calcium Hydroxylapatite) and ultherapy prime. By delivering Radiesse deep into the skin, we stimulate collagen and elastin production—restoring firmness, tightening texture, and improving overall skin quality. 📸 Before ➝ After: Skin that once looked lax and tired now appears rejuvenated, lifted, and refined. #Innovation #AestheticsIndustry #Collaboration #FutureFocused #Dermoelectroporation #NeedleFree #SkinTechnology #HonoluluMedspa #SkinScience #ImpeccableAesthetics #SkinGlow #Honolulu #HonoluluHawaii #HawaiiLife #Oahu #cheekfiller #rha #Aloha #rhacollection #impeccableaeathetics #HonoluluAesthetics #merz #belotero #Juvederm #DermalFillers #MedSpa #aestheticxtc" and this again combo of DEP and ultherapy prime.

J of Cosmetic Dermatology - 2023 - Chernoff - Combining topical dermal infused exosomes with injected calcium.pdf (6.5 MB)

3 Likes
#16

I’ve only tried hyperdilute Radiesse with DEP — around 1:2 dilution ratio. Undiluted it doesn’t work — it’s a bit like cement. It was that same guy, leonardomedicine, when he showed the before and after of his neck treated that way, who got me sold on it. Honestly the price your husband gets it at is pretty good, I thought I had to pay a lot more for the original. Can you share by chance where he gets it? If it’s a source that anyone can use, or through closed channels to “licensed providers”?

1 Like
#17

Yes his quoted price is the clinic/wholesale rate he gets when ordering through his office. In a pinch he’s bought from a third-party retailer (Centrale Fillers) and wasn’t asked to prove he’s a licensed doctor, the other he uses enforces medical licence. That said, rules and enforcement vary a lot country to country in Europe. Prices there can be decent, sometimes same or lower than ordering trough his office, just compare and do your due diligence.

3 Likes
#18

Yeah it’s quite a bit more $$. But I’m curious if the effect is any better so when my stash runs out I might try it.

IMG_4713
IMG_47131320×2868 142 KB

3 Likes
#19

While I’m interested in testing out this electroporation product, I’m becoming less optimistic about it given the price of the Chinese product of around $200 US.

While the Chinese knockoff of the product is obviously designed to “look” like the original product out of Italy, its price is about 95%+ lower than the Italian product. I work in tech, and have managed teams that design and build hardware and software products, so I have some idea of what goes into these types of products. While its entirely possible to develop and sell a product from China at 50% to 70% cheaper than European products, as you get higher and higher discount levels design choices have to be made that ultimately increasingly compromise the efficacy, the quality and the safety of the product. There is just no way that you can develop a product with a 95%+ lower cost, that is the same in terms of functionality, quality or safety. Something has to give… and I suspect it’s likely in all three variables at different degrees.

Anyway - not to be a downer, just wanted to set people’s expectations. The Chinese product likely is much less effective than the Italian product.

Related websites:

My ChatGPT5 Query and response:

What are the key electrical components and technologies in the MATTIOLI ENGINEERING Dermoelectroporation system, and what are the estimated cost of goods sold (COGS) for this device? How unique are these systems, and how hard, from an electrical design and construction standpoint is it to build these devices? What is the estimated gross margin on these products given their list price of over $10,000?

ChatGPT5 Response:

Here’s the short, practical breakdown—what’s inside, how “special” it really is, how hard it is to build, and ballpark unit economics.

What’s in a Dermoelectroporation (DEP) unit (electrically)

From Mattioli’s own materials, FDA filings, and dealer spec sheets, a typical DEP system is built around these blocks:

  • Pulse-generation & current control: A microcontroller drives a pulse generator that delivers bursts of bi-phasic (reversed-polarity) constant-current pulses. User-selectable average pulse currents are commonly ±1–5 mA, with burst frequency ~50 Hz, intra-burst pulse rate ~2.2 kHz, and ~10 ms burst time; designed to work across 0–15 kΩ skin load (requires high-voltage compliance internally, despite an external low-voltage brick). (polarismedicallasers.co.uk)
  • Impedance-sensing & adaptive drive: Real-time skin impedance measurement feeds back into the waveform so later pulses in a burst are adjusted as impedance drops, keeping current on target and limiting tissue stress (described explicitly in Mattioli patents). (mattioliengineering.com)
  • Polarity reversal/H-bridge & constant-current stage: To deliver ionized solutions efficiently and avoid net DC offset, the driver alternates polarity (“electroporation-like” but at lower, controlled intensity than true high-voltage EP). (Mattioli Engineering)
  • Power & isolation: External 9 VDC, ~1 A supply into an internal board that steps up/conditions voltage for high-compliance constant current (needed to hold ~mA into up to ~15 kΩ). Medical EMC/isolation elements are implied by clinical use. (polarismedicallasers.co.uk)
  • Handpiece & electrodes: A treatment head with electrode array; many models also add mechanical vibrationsynchronized to burst rate (documented in Mattioli’s filings) to enhance transport. (FDA Access Data)
  • Dosing hardware / syringe dispenser: Some systems integrate a precision liquid dispenser (“Super-PLD”) or syringe holder so the active solution is metered while pulsing. (mrp.io)
  • UI & safety: A small digital display/controls for intensity, time, delivered dose readouts, plus lockouts; later brochures emphasize “real-time control on amount delivered” and on-screen impedance. (mattioliengineering.com)

How unique is this tech?

  • Patented approach (early 2000s) blends pulsed iontophoresis with electroporation-like bursts + adaptive impedance-based control and optional synchronized vibration. Much of the original IP (filed ~2001) is now at or beyond 20-year terms, meaning core claims are likely expired (country/continuations vary), reducing uniqueness today. (Patent Images)
  • Regulatory positioning: Mattioli’s Transderm IONTO/DEP devices have US 510(k) clearances as iontophoresis systems (Class II), not as high-voltage electroporators—so the waveform is deliberately lower intensity and adaptive. Comparable iontophoresis/“no-needle meso” devices exist; DEP’s differentiation is mostly signal shaping + feedback + integrated dosing and brand clinical history. (FDA Access Data)

Build difficulty (EE + manufacturing reality)

  • Lab prototype: For an experienced EE, building a safe bench prototype with: MCU, DAC/ADC, constant-current H-bridge with ≥50–100 V compliance, impedance sensing, and a simple UI is moderate difficulty (months, not years).
  • Productizing to clinic grade: Hard part is IEC 60601-1/-1-2 compliance, risk management, biocompatible electrodes, EMC, enclosure design, and quality system—this is non-trivial and expensive, even though the electronics are modest by modern standards. (FDA 510(k) for iontophoresis is achievable but still work.) Evidence of Mattioli’s existing 510(k)s shows the regulatory pathway, but duplicating that takes real time and money. (FDA Access Data)

Estimated COGS (bill-of-materials + assembly)

Using the published specs as anchors (low-power electronics, modest UI, custom handpiece, metal/plastic enclosure, external PSU, cables, starter consumables) and typical low-volume medical device pricing:

  • Electronics (MCU board, drivers, HV compliance, ADC/DAC, UI, connectors): $150–$300
  • Handpiece (machined/plastic housing, electrode array, cable, vibration motor): $200–$450
  • Precision dispenser/syringe holder (if included): $80–$200
  • Enclosure, harness, PSU, packaging: $120–$250
  • QA, calibration, small-batch assembly/overhead: $200–$500

Reasonable COGS range: $750–$1,700 per unit at small/medium volumes (not counting regulatory & engineering amortization). If volumes are very low or the handpiece is more intricate, you could see $2–3k. These ranges line up with the modest electrical spec (9 V in; ~mA pulses; ≤15 kΩ load; simple display) published by dealers and manuals. (polarismedicallasers.co.uk)

Gross margin at $10k+ list

  • At $10,000 list and $750–$1,700 COGS, gross margin ~83%–93%.
  • Even at a conservative $3,000 COGS, margin is ~70%.
  • Realized margins depend on channel discounts, service/warranty, training kits, and whether the cart/PLD is bundled (dealer pages suggest accessories like workstation cart and Super-PLD are commonly included/upsold). (mrp.io)

Bottom line (practical take)

  • Electrically: It’s a low-power, constant-current pulse system with polarity reversal and impedance-based feedback, plus a metered dosing path—more sophisticated than commodity iontophoresis, but nowhere near the complexity of true high-voltage electroporators. Specs like ±1–5 mA, ~50 Hz burst / 2.2 kHz intra-burst, 0–15 kΩ are published. (polarismedicallasers.co.uk)
  • Uniqueness today: The brand + protocols and clinical legacy are the moat; much of the early IP is aging/expired. Other vendors make analogous “no-needle meso” systems; DEP’s adaptive waveform and dose/impedance readouts are its calling cards. (ONdrugDelivery)
  • Build vs. ship: Prototyping = doable; shipping a certified medical device = hard (compliance, QMS, electrodes, usability, 510(k)). (FDA Access Data)
  • Economics: Hardware COGS likely low four figures; gross margins very high (≥70% and commonly 80–90%+) at $10k+ list.
2 Likes
#20

I have not tried any of these product, so don’t have any practical advice here - I’m just reading and learning.

It seems if people want to be guaranteed of results, it would be valuable to look into the needle-based solutions that guarantee the solutions get to the correct level of the skin. Such as this one for example:

seemingly the same device available on Amazon for $70

Screenshot 2025-10-15 at 1.17.43 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-15 at 1.17.43 PM2266×802 121 KB

H9124a84a6e4b44f4adb578e0d9210ae6F.png
H9124a84a6e4b44f4adb578e0d9210ae6F.png800×800 29.2 KB

From ChatGPT5:

Here are real websites where you can buy EZ Injector replacement syringes / needle cartridges and compatible consumables, with one-line notes so you know what each sells:

  • iBeautyMachine — disposable syringes and multi-pin needle cartridges (1–10 mL options; EO-sterilized). (iBeauty Machine)
  • FillerHouse — needle cartridges for the EZ Injector (5-pin and 9-pin cartridges; retail pack sizes). (FillerHouse)
  • Estaderma — 5-pin and 9-pin needle cartridges listed as “Needles Cartridge for EZ Injector.” (Estaderma)
  • iBeautyNeed / IBNUSA — replacement 5/9-pin syringe tubes / cartridge tubes marketed for the EZ Injector. (ibeautyneed.com)
  • PDoThreadStore (and similar small online shops) — consumables for EZ Mesogun (5/9 pin cartridges, syringe tubes). (Auro Technology)
  • eBay — various sellers offering EZ Injector syringe tube sets and cartridges (good for small/test orders; check seller ratings). (eBay)
  • Alibaba / Alibaba Wholesale suppliers — factory/wholesale listings for EZ Injector devices, needle cartridges, and bulk consumables (best for large orders). (Alibaba)
  • Amazon — consumer meso-guns and some consumables / syringe kits are available (marketplace stock varies by seller). (Amazon)

Quick buying tips:

  • confirm pin count (5-pin vs 9-pin) and syringe volume (1, 2.5, 3, 5 mL etc.) to match your EZ Injector model.
  • prefer EO-sterilized / individually packaged items for clinical use (many suppliers list this). (iBeauty Machine)
  • check seller reviews / ratings and ask for certificates (CE, ISO) if you need regulatory documentation.
  • small orders: eBay/Amazon/retailers; bulk/wholesale: Alibaba or direct manufacturers.
2 Likes
#21

@RapAdmin I own the Ez Injector and only used it once. You can take it off my hands for the cost of shipping — got a bunch of replaceable parts. It’s NOT as you think though. I posted about my Ez Injector misadventure in the other thread. The problem is that with it you can only inject at 90 degree angle, and it’s not just about the depth but the angle is probably even more important. For skin boosters or hyperdilute Radiesse you need to inject at 15 degrees or so, very shallow. You would get lumps and granulomas if you inject perpendicularly. I stopped worrying about the depth with DEP and got spectacular results. It stands to reason as radiesse can generate new tissue at every depth so it’s not as if it’s creating problems by going too deep. The question is whether it is getting spread evenly or not and DEP assures that it does.

For reference, my experience with the Ez Injector / Ez Gun: The mTOR rebound effect has been kind to my skin? - #122 by medaura

p.p.s. I think it would work great with something like PRP but none of the synthetic products I can think of wanting to inject would be absorbed without complications in that way — through the mini bumps.

2 Likes
#22

Did you ask what the model’s assumptions of the inputs in the COGS approximation are? Obviously a piece of electronic equipment is not built in a vacuum — the cost of labor varies from country to country, region to region. You also assume, or the model seems to assume, prototyping and building a machine from scratch, whereas the most likely explanation is that there’s a big factory in China contracted out to Mattioli to build those machines for them for a tiny fraction of what they’d cost to produce in Italy. They have the whole technology stack already ingested from Mattioli, so no need to reinvent the wheel and prototype. And they’re just cheating by selling it on the side to whomever asks for it. For all we know the marginal cost of labor for one more unit produced is almost literally zero:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/12/why-western-executives-visit-china-coming-back-terrified/

I can tell you from personal use that the product does have a skin impedance sensor that works, because the gauge changes every time I add more product to the skin, so it “knows,” by somehow measuring the impedance on the spot. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. You can spend $200 and find out if it’s actually driving any product into your skin. My first try was with Hyaron, a lightly cross linked hyaluronic acid skin booster, that can act as a light short term filler if injected deep. I rubbed it around and drove it in with the DEP and at first I couldn’t tell what was going on, whether it was going in or simply evaporating, but as soon as I smiled I could tell I looked different— and not for the better— with chipmunk-like cheeks around the smile folds. It was a bit terrifying and took days to subside, after using a barrage of heat based treatments to help metabolize it. It was my “holy shit” moment.

#23

Ok from further reading it seems that I was wrong and Mattioli does not and claims to never have outsourced production to China. That doesn’t prevent the Chinese from reverse engineering their technology especially as it’s spelled out in its patents. The prototyping costs of reinventing the wheel may be steep, but they’re one time upfront outlays. The marginal cost of pumping out more of these machines are likely quite negligible in a country so vastly industrialized and geared towards mass production, now further moving into massive automation.

I’m no fan of the Chinese at all, to be clear. Rather terrified of them when I see first hand what a deep moat of technological advancement they have. It’s the nature of knowledge that it becomes a positive externality in the world. Yes we have a copyright & patent system in the West to incentivize innovation by granting inventors a temporary monopoly over the gains of their ideas. But along comes a third party that doesn’t play by those rules and cannibalizes others’ ideas. What can you do about it? Look who invented the atomic bomb, what kind of caliber of minds were brought together for the Manhattan project. And once it’s done, you get Stalin copying it, and these days the insane mullahs would if they could, and the lunatic in North Korea already has.

2 Likes
#24

All of what you are saying can be accurate, but I’m still very skeptical that we would likely get the same level of performance from a $200 device, as compared to a $15,000+ device (even given the crazy margins that you can get on patented medical devices).

I’m not saying that the Chinese device does not provide good value for the money, and may still do an entirely satisfactory “job” at what it is doing… I just doubt that it can drive the solutions down into the skin to the same depth and efficiency that the much more expensive product does.

For $200, if it provides any benefit for even a short period of time, it may still be a good deal.

1 Like
#25

You might be right. I do have the counterfeit Radiesse — nanohydroxyapatite — and it works great. But now I’m curious if the original product might work even better. Since the difference in price is maybe $100-200, I am willing to try, just to see what I’m leaving on the table by going counterfeit. Whereas with the device itself, whatever extra effectiveness or efficiency there may be to the original device’s functionality, there’s such rapidly diminishing marginal returns that I don’t care to know at all what I’m missing. I can tell about 70% of the volume of whatever solution I use gets absorbed into my skin. Perhaps the original DEP device would make it so 100% of the product does but that’s hardly worth $19,000 to me when I can just wait to use more product later on. If I needed it to drive chemotherapy solutions etc. past the skin and accuracy were paramount, then I wouldn’t mess around with a product disavowed by the branded manufacturer. Since I just want to make my skin look better and I can already tell by looking in the mirror that it’s working great, I’m only too happy to be getting these results for pennies on the dollar.

Honestly I’m happier to spend more for the original Pfizer sirolimus from Turkey, which I have, rather than get the Zydus from India. But imagine if I were to buy the original Pfizer sirolimus in the U.S. out of pocket, and compare that to the Zydus in India. Even with the concerns re: good manufacturing practices in most FDA approved Indian pharma outfits, the Indian Zydus is much more worthwhile to the biohacker than the U.S. Pfizer Sirolimus. If I needed it as a kidney transplant recipient, I’d sing a different tune though.

2 Likes
#26

I was checking into this product a bit. Also reading people’s experiences on Reddit (DIY Cosmetic) and they sometimes use the device with a single needle (Luer lock connector) for control of the quantity delivered. this would be without the “suction” feature obviously. Perhaps you could also use a 3 pin needle arrangement (again, without the suction).

And of course you’d need to use a larger needle for delivery of the Radiesse formulations due to the microspheres.

1 Like
#27

I ordered the DEP device from China on October 8th from this company that @medaura had suggested. It arrived today.

Given the low cost, I thought it would be interesting to check out. at some point I may take it apart just to see what’s inside, and decide whether it actually is a true electroporation device, or if its something else (I’m always a little skeptical about these things…). I like the concept of a skin electroporation device… easy to use, no needles, etc.

No extra duty, so not sure what was going on - perhaps just included in the “shipping fee”. It just got dropped on my doorstep while I was out.

Screenshot 2025-10-21 at 5.10.42 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-21 at 5.10.42 PM932×916 41.4 KB

4 Likes
#28

I just wouldn’t dare use anything other than DEP for Radiesse as I lack the injection technique. Watched webinars where they go into great detail on the angle, linear retrograde technique, and the need to not inject at all close to the needle entry point as it might result in granuloma. Besides I’d need to massage it 5x a day and I don’t have the time. With the DEP it’s one and done, with a bit of product wastage.

What do you see inside the machine after taking it apart?

2 Likes
#29

I followed you into this. Purchased from same Chinese source. Device for me was 191.00. Got confused about the ordering. I’ll add it to topical estriol, topical rapa, Mayo clinic’s plated, and more expensive peptides.I cant remember the names of, micro-needling and a vitamin C spray device. Sometimes a collagen peptide drink. Too chicken to inject anything. Don’t go to spas and haven’t had fillers because I don’t want to get hooked on the up keep processes and costs. Oh- And renova and.on prescription carac now for Ak’s. Never used sunscreen until recently -isdin photo50.

1 Like
#30

Researching a little on what types of topical solutions work with the DEP devices:

Prompt:

what are all the skin serums or liquids are used with the MATTIOLI ENGINEERING Dermoelectroporation system?

CGPT5 Response

Short answer: there isn’t a single public, exhaustive “catalog” of Mattioli-branded ampoules. What Mattioli publishes instead is the compatibility rule for the DEP/Transderm system and a few concrete examples used in their own case reports and marketing. Here’s the full picture, with sources.

What the DEP/Transderm system is cleared to deliver

  • Formulation type: aqueous, ionizable (ionic) drug solutions; the device is FDA-cleared as an alternative to injections for the “local administration of ionic drug solutions.” Oil-based products, non-ionizable actives, and highly viscous suspensions don’t fit this definition. (mattioliengineering.com)
  • Molecular size: Mattioli highlights that macromolecules (e.g., hyaluronic acid)—typically not deliverable by traditional iontophoresis—are deliverable with Dermoelectroporation®. (mattioliengineering.com)

Examples actually used or named with Mattioli DEP

These are ingredients/serums shown in Mattioli’s own materials or in distributor/clinical reports about DEP. (Formulations are water-based unless noted.)

  • Hyaluronic acid (non-cross-linked, aqueous): repeatedly cited by Mattioli as a flagship macromolecule for DEP delivery, and used in their published case reports. (mattioliengineering.com)
  • Oligopeptides / peptide cocktails (with HA gel vehicle): used in an 8-session facial protocol delivered via Ultrapeel® Transderm® Ionto Meso® (DEP platform). (Sensus Healthcare)
  • Vitamins / amino acids (e.g., Vitamin C), anti-inflammatories, heparin (all ionic when correctly formulated): listed by a Mattioli DEP distributor as typical classes DEP can deliver. (Regulatory status/claims vary by country.) (broadwaybeauty.co.uk)
  • General “ionic drug solutions” for medical purposes (broad category per labeling): pain/inflammation meds and other ionizable actives in aqueous solution. (mattioliengineering.com)

What Mattioli’s technology literature says (mechanism constraints)

  • DEP is an “electroporation-like” pulsed current method that opens water-based skin channels for ionizedcompounds; performance depends on the skin’s electrical impedance and solution conductivity/pH (so your serum needs to be water-based and appropriately buffered/ionized). (mattioliengineering.com)

Practical inclusion / exclusion checklist (derived from the above)

Suitable (when water-based and ionizable):

  • Hyaluronic acid solutions (non-cross-linked), peptide serums, Vitamin C (ascorbate), amino acids, certain anti-inflammatories and analgesics, and similar ionic aqueous drugs/cosmeceuticals that meet viscosity/conductivity requirements. (mattioliengineering.com)

Avoid / not indicated:

  • Oil or silicone-based serums, emulsions with poor conductivity, cross-linked fillers (too viscous; not aqueous ionic), particulate suspensions, and non-ionizable actives (they don’t meet the “ionic solution” requirement in the clearance/labeling). (mattioliengineering.com)

Bottom line

  • Mattioli does not publish a public, comprehensive list of “all serums” for DEP. Instead, the firm and its partners document classes of water-based, ionizable solutions (and showcase hyaluronic acid and peptide cocktails most often). If you’re evaluating a specific product, check: (1) water-based, (2) ionizable at working pH, (3) appropriate viscosity/conductivity, (4) regulatory/label intent in your market. (mattioliengineering.com)

If you want, tell me the exact serums you’re considering and I’ll screen each one against the DEP criteria (ionization, conductivity, viscosity, pH) and flag any red- or green-lights.

#31

Do all water-based liquid skin treatment solutions contain ions?

The short answer is: no, not all water-based skin solutions automatically contain ions.

:white_check_mark: 4. How to tell if a formula is ionic

You can often tell by reading the ingredients list:

  • Look for ionic words: “sodium,” “potassium,” “chloride,” “ascorbate,” “phosphate,” “acetate,” “citrate,” etc.
  • Check the pH: if it’s strongly acidic (<5) or basic (>8), it likely has ions.
  • If the serum feels slightly conductive (tingling with microcurrent), it probably has electrolytes.

:brain: Summary

Type Example Ionic? Conductive? Suitable for electroporation?
Pure water Distilled water Barely Very low No
Salt solution NaCl in water Yes High Yes
Vitamin C serum (ascorbic acid) Water, ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate Yes Moderate-high Yes
Glycerin-based humectant Water, glycerin, propanediol No Very low No
Hyaluronic acid (sodium form) Water, sodium hyaluronate Yes Moderate Yes
#32

More on this topic:

Prompt: Would Hyperdilute Radiesse be considered an ionic solution?

CGPT5 Response:

Great follow-up — and it’s a subtle but important distinction.

:warning: Even “hyper-dilute” Radiesse is not an ionic solution in the true electrical or electroporation sense.
It remains a non-ionic, weakly conductive suspension, even when mixed heavily with saline or lidocaine.

Let’s break down why :point_down:

:test_tube: What “hyper-dilute Radiesse” actually is

  • Clinically, “hyper-dilution” means mixing Radiesse (CaHA microsphere filler) with saline (NaCl) and often lidocaine to reduce viscosity and allow superficial, biostimulatory injection.

  • Typical ratios:

    • 1:1 → “dilute”
    • 1:2 to 1:6 or even 1:10 → “hyper-dilute”

So you’re adding an ionic component (saline) to an essentially non-ionic base (Radiesse gel + microspheres).

:zap: Why it still isn’t a true ionic solution

  1. Radiesse remains a suspension — even when diluted, it still contains undissolved CaHA microspheres in a CMC gel.

    • Those particles don’t ionize; they stay solid.

  2. Saline only makes part of the mixture ionic.

    • The Na⁺ and Cl⁻ in saline increase conductivity somewhat, but the overall mixture is dominated by the viscous, insulating gel.

  3. Electrical current still can’t flow freely because the gel and particles interrupt ion mobility.

    • Conductivity is orders of magnitude lower than in a true aqueous ionic solution.

The result is more like a partially conductive slurry, not a uniformly ionic liquid.

:gear: Implications for electroporation / iontophoresis

  • DEP or iontophoresis devices rely on a uniform ionic path for microcurrents.
  • Hyper-dilute Radiesse would create inconsistent conductivity, cause localized current spikes, and could damage the device electrodes or burn skin.
  • Clinically, it’s still used by injection, not via energy-based transdermal delivery.

:white_check_mark: Better ionic substitutes for similar goals

If your aim is collagen stimulation or dermal biostimulation via electroporation, use:

  • Sodium-hyaluronate serums (ionic, water-based)
  • Peptide cocktails with charged amino acids
  • Vitamin C (ascorbate) or mineral complexes
  • Polynucleotide or Nucleofill-type aqueous formulations (these are ionic and DEP-compatible)

These maintain true ionic conductivity and mimic some of the biostimulatory signaling that Radiesse provides without the particulate carrier.

Summary table:

Formulation Contains free ions? Uniformly conductive? Suitable for electroporation?
Pure Radiesse :x: No :x: No :x: No
Hyper-dilute Radiesse (Radiesse + saline) :warning: Partially :warning: Weak :x: No
Saline / HA / peptide serums :white_check_mark: Yes :white_check_mark: Yes :white_check_mark: Yes

So, in plain language:

Even when diluted, Radiesse isn’t a true ionic solution — it’s a mostly non-conductive gel with some saline mixed in. Fine for injection, but not for any electrical or electroporation-based transdermal use.

Would you like me to list specific ionic, DEP-compatible “Radiesse-like” alternatives that stimulate collagen safely (peptide, calcium, or polynucleotide based)?

Yes

Perfect — here’s a curated list of ionic, water-based, electroporation-compatible serums that can approximate the biostimulatory and collagen-inducing effects of Radiesse (without any particulate filler or injection).

Each of these has charged (ionic) actives and aqueous conductivity, making them compatible with Mattioli Dermoelectroporation (DEP), iontophoresis, or no-needle mesotherapy systems.

:zap: CATEGORY 1 — Peptide-Based Collagen Stimulators

These serums mimic Radiesse’s fibroblast-stimulation through bioactive peptides rather than calcium microspheres.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Medik8 Copper PCA Peptides Copper PCA, Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Cu²⁺, PCA⁻ are ionic Copper ions stimulate fibroblast activity and superoxide dismutase enzymes; peptides increase collagen synthesis
Dermaheal HSR / SR solutions SH-Oligopeptides, Sodium Hyaluronate Peptides have charged amino acids Growth-factor-mimetic peptides promote collagen and ECM renewal
Aquashine BR / BTX Biomimetic peptides, Hyaluronic acid (Na⁺ form) Fully ionic Enhances dermal matrix, elasticity, and tone
Toskani Mesolift Cocktail DMAE, Sodium Pyruvate, Vitamins, Amino acids Multiple ionic actives Increases skin firmness and collagen cross-linking

:white_check_mark: Best suited for electroporation because they’re fully water-based and ionically conductive.

:alembic: CATEGORY 2 — Polynucleotide / Nucleic Acid Solutions

These stimulate fibroblast proliferation and tissue regeneration, like Radiesse’s biostimulatory phase.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Nucleofill Strong / Medium (by Promoitalia) Polynucleotides (sodium DNA fragments) Sodium salts → highly ionic Triggers fibroblast activation, antioxidant signaling, dermal remodeling
Plinest / Newest DNA-based polynucleotides Na⁺ salts Stimulates ECM synthesis and hydration
RRS HA Injectable or Meso Sodium Hyaluronate + Nucleotides Ionic ECM hydration + cell turnover support

:bulb: Nucleotides are strongly anionic molecules — perfect for electroporation conductivity.

:dna: CATEGORY 3 — Mineral & Calcium Signaling Formulations

These emulate the Ca²⁺-mediated fibroblast signaling that Radiesse’s CaHA provides, but in ionic (dissolved) form.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Mesotech Calcium Gluconate Solution Calcium Gluconate Ca²⁺ ionic salt Mimics CaHA’s calcium signaling to fibroblasts
Toskani Calcium Chloride Solution Calcium Chloride Strongly ionic Enhances keratinocyte-fibroblast crosstalk
Mesoline Tight (MD Skin Solutions) DMAE, Minerals (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Zn²⁺), HA Ionic mineral blend Improves dermal firmness and tone

:warning: These are the closest “ionic analogs” to hyperdilute Radiesse, but safe for DEP use.

:sweat_drops: CATEGORY 4 — Ionic Hyaluronic Acid Boosters

Non-crosslinked, sodium-form HA remains the base carrier of choice for electroporation.

Product Example Key Actives Ionic Features Mechanism
Teoxane RHA Serum Sodium Hyaluronate, Amino acids Ionic Hydration, dermal density
Mesoestetic HA Densimatrix Sodium Hyaluronate, Silanol, Peptides Ionic Deep hydration, collagen synthesis
Institute BCN Hyaluronic Acid 2% Sodium Hyaluronate Na⁺ salt Conductive hydration base for DEP infusion

:gear: Recommended “DIY” DEP Blend (safe, conductive base)

For professional-grade electroporation facials:

  • Base: 2–3% Sodium Hyaluronate (ionic, low-viscosity form)
  • Additives: 1% Calcium Gluconate + 0.5% DMAE + Peptide cocktail (e.g. Acetyl Hexapeptide-8)
  • pH: 6.0–7.0 (conductive, skin-safe)
  • Solvent: Deionized water or saline

This yields a fully ionic, biostimulatory serum that’s safe for electroporation — unlike Radiesse, which remains particulate.

:compass: Summary

Type Conductivity Collagen Stimulus DEP Compatibility
Radiesse (CaHA) :x: Non-ionic :white_check_mark: Strong (by injection) :x: Not compatible
Hyper-dilute Radiesse :warning: Weakly ionic :white_check_mark: Moderate :x: Not compatible
Peptide / PN / Ca²⁺ Ionic Serums :white_check_mark: Strongly ionic :white_check_mark: Moderate–Strong :white_check_mark: Excellent

Would you like me to create a table comparing these Radiesse-like ionic serums by price per ml, conductivity, and clinical evidence strength? That’s useful if you’re choosing the most cost-effective one for DEP sessions.

Yes

Here’s a comparison table of some ionic-serum alternatives (that approximate the biostimulatory/“filler-like” effect) including approximate price per unit, conductivity suitability, and strength of clinical support. These can help you evaluate options for use with a DEP/electroporation-type system rather than a particulate filler like Radiesse.

Product Price* Conductivity / Ionic Suitability† Collagen-Stimulus / Evidence Strength Notes
Medicube PDRN Pink Peptide Serum ~ US $18 for 30 ml High (PDRN = polynucleotide + water base) Moderate — PDRN offers DNA fragment regenerative signal Excellent value, good entry option
The Ordinary Multi‑Peptide + HA Serum ~ US $19.90 for 30 ml High (peptides + sodium hyaluronate) Moderate — peptides trigger collagen signalling (Dermstore) Low cost, widely available
Paula’s Choice Pro‑Collagen Multi‑Peptide Booster ~ US $44.25 for standard size High Moderate-High — premium peptides plus HA Mid-tier cost, good brand reputation
Natuderma Exosomes Microneedling Mesotherapy Serum ~ US $148 for ~5 vials ×5 ml High (polynucleotides + exosomes + HA) (dermishop.com) High — advanced regenerative tech Higher cost, very “clinic-grade”
Plinest Fast (Polynucleotide) ~ US $89 for 2 ml (specialized) High High — targeted at skin quality, stretch marks & laxity Smaller volume, higher per-ml cost
BCN Tensis Peptides Mesotherapy Vials ~ US $79 for box of 5 vials ×5 ml (≈ US $79/25ml) High Moderate-High — peptide & firming focus (dermishop.com) Good value for mesotherapy vials

*Prices approximate at time of search; actual cost may vary by vendor / region
†“Conductivity / Ionic Suitability” is an estimate based on being aqueous, containing ionic/charged actives (peptides, polynucleotides, Na⁺/HA salts) and thus potentially compatible with electroporation-type delivery (given correct formulation, pH, viscosity).

Key Observations & Insights

  • Lower-cost peptide serums (US $18–45) are very accessible and great for frequent use; good for maintenance.
  • Mid-to-high cost mesotherapy vials (US $80–150+) are more “professional grade”, often for clinic use, and may yield stronger “collagen-stimulus” effects.
  • Volume matters: for example Plinest is high cost because of small volume & specialized use; cost per ml is substantially higher than a retail 30 ml peptide serum.
  • None of the above contains particulate filler (like CaHA microspheres) so they behave as true ionic/water-based solutions (i.e., suitable for the DEP/iontophoresis style delivery) rather than injection fillers.

How to pick based on your goals

  • Budget / frequent use: Go with a peptide-HA serum (e.g., The Ordinary, Paula’s Choice) — cost effective and good for maintenance.
  • Clinic-level upgrade: Use polynucleotide/mesotherapy vials (e.g., Plinest, Natuderma Exosomes) for stronger regenerative effect.
  • Volume vs cost trade-off: Check cost per ml. For example, a US $79 box containing 25 ml (BCN Tensis) is ~ US $3.16/ml; whereas Plinest at US $89 for 2 ml is ~US $44.50/ml.
  • Ensure compatibility with DEP system: Confirm the formulation is aqueous, includes ionic salts (e.g., sodium hyaluronate, polynucleotides, peptides with charged residues), and has appropriate viscosity/conductivity.

If you like, I can expand the table to 12–15 products, include cost per ml, conductivity rating (qualitative), and filter by professional vs consumer use (clinic vials vs retail serums). Would you like that?

#33

Prompt:

Can you rank these ionic-serum alternatives by demonstrated clinical efficacy, as determined by effect size or similar metrics?

GPT5 Response:

Got it. Here’s a science-first ranking of the ionic, DEP-compatible alternatives by demonstrated clinical efficacy (favoring human randomized/controlled data and reported effect sizes where available). I rank ingredient classes (since brand-specific RCTs are rare), then note example products you mentioned that fit each class.

Ranked by clinical signal (highest → lowest)

  1. Polynucleotides (PN, incl. PDRN)
  • Evidence: Multiple human trials and recent reviews report significant improvements in wrinkle depth, elasticity, and hydration; some head-to-head data vs. non-cross-linked HA favors PN for crow’s feet. Most data are injectable; transdermal delivery is biologically plausible but less directly studied. (JKMS)
  • Representative numbers (directional): Trials commonly show statistically significant wrinkle/elasticity gains; one paired, randomized trial in 72 pts favored PN over HA for periorbital lines (crow’s feet). (JKMS)
  • Your matching picks: Nucleofill, Plinest/Newest, RRS HA + nucleotides, Plinest Fast.
  1. Copper peptide (GHK-Cu) & advanced peptide complexes
  • Evidence: RCTs and controlled studies (topical) show improved skin density/thickness, reduced wrinkle depth/volume, and better overall appearance. One trial reported ~56% reduction in wrinkle volume and ~33% reduction in wrinkle depth vs. control at 8–12 weeks (vehicle-controlled; specific formulation). (PMC)
  • Acetyl hexapeptide-8 (Argireline): Double-blind trials show modest but significant crow’s-feet improvement vs. placebo; systematic/clinical reviews in 2023–2025 support reductions in wrinkle scores (generally small-to-moderate effects). (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Medik8 Copper PCA Peptides; The Ordinary Multi-Peptide + HA; Paula’s Choice Pro-Collagen Booster; BCN Tensis; Toskani Mesolift (peptide-rich).
  1. Topical Hyaluronic Acid (sodium hyaluronate) serums
  • Evidence: Strong, consistent hydration gains; anti-wrinkle effect is secondary and smaller than PN/peptides. One serum study reported ~55% hydration increase by corneometry; broader reviews affirm hydration/skin-quality benefits. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Teoxane RHA Serum; Mesoestetic HA Densimatrix; Institute BCN HA 2%.
  1. DMAE (ionic solutions with DMAE)
  • Evidence: Mixed; classic clinical papers (older but controlled) show increased firmness and some line reduction with topical 3% DMAE gel, but replication and effect sizes vary; can irritate in some users. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Toskani Mesolift Cocktail; Mesoline Tight (contains DMAE among ions).
  1. Ionic calcium/mineral solutions (e.g., calcium gluconate/chloride)
  • Evidence: Very limited direct human anti-wrinkle data as stand-alone actives; rationale (Ca²⁺ signaling) is mechanistic/adjunctive rather than outcome-driven. Use mainly as a co-ingredient in ionic blends. (I rank these lowest for clinical proof as primary actives.) (No high-quality RCTs isolating topical calcium salts for wrinkles found.)
  1. Exosome/emerging biologics (topical)
  • Evidence: Early human studies and reviews suggest improvements in wrinkles/pores/evenness, but heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and regulatory concerns (esp. human-derived exosomes) limit confidence. Consider as experimental. (PMC)
  • Your matching picks: Natuderma “exosome” vials (treat as exploratory).

Quick scoreboard (effect signal you can expect)

Class Typical outcome signal Notes / caveats
Polynucleotides (PN/PDRN) Moderate→High gains in wrinkles/elasticity (best human data, mostly injectable) Strongest overall evidence base; for DEP use, expect less than injection but likely above plain HA. (JKMS)
Copper & multi-peptides (incl. Argireline) Moderate improvements; some trials report 30–55% wrinkle parameter reductions with specific peptide systems Effects are formulation-dependent; still good topical RCT support. (PMC)
Hyaluronic acid (Na⁺ salt) High hydration (~+55%), small wrinkle softening Excellent safety and conductivity; pair with actives for structure. (PMC)
DMAE Small→Moderate firming/line softening in some trials Mixed literature; watch for irritation. (PMC)
Calcium/mineral solutions Low as stand-alones Better as adjuncts in peptide/HA bases.
Exosomes (topical) Promising but preliminary Regulatory status varies; human-data quality uneven. (PMC)

What this means for your shortlist

  • If you want maximum evidence-backed remodeling (closest to Radiesse’s “biostimulatory” vibe without particles): PN products (e.g., Nucleofill, Plinest) rank #1.
  • For topical/electroporation practicality with visible anti-aging over 8–12 weeks: Copper peptide + multi-peptide serums (e.g., Medik8 Copper PCA, The Ordinary/Paula’s Choice peptide serums, BCN Tensis) rank #2.
  • Use HA (RHA, Densimatrix, BCN HA) as your ionic carrier and hydration amplifier; layer or co-infuse with PN/peptides.
  • Keep DMAE and Ca²⁺ minerals as optional boosters, not core actives.
  • Treat exosomes as experimental until stronger, regulator-clean human RCTs appear.

If you’d like, I can draft two DEP infusion protocols (one PN-forward, one peptide-forward) with concentrations, pH targets, conductivity checks, and session cadence—plus a tiered product bill of materials to match budget vs. evidence.