Ingredient Beauty BenefitsRoute · Injection
hADM: finely particulated human dermis, injected — the clinical trial has 20 people in it
Donated human skin is stripped of its cells, and the remaining dermal matrix is particulated and injected. The clinical evidence as a skin booster is **a single 20-person split-face trial**; the rest is cell, tissue and rat work. There is a separate 202-person trial for filling nasolabial folds, but that is **a different product for a different purpose.**
Last checked Sep 17, 2026
Human acellular dermal matrix (hADM) is the extracellular matrix scaffold left after every cell is removed from donated human skin. Structural proteins such as collagen, elastin and hyaluronic acid remain with their original architecture intact.
The material has long been used in burn and reconstructive surgery. Particulating it so it can be injected is recent, and in Korea the brand Rituo is known.
Its category differs from the other procedures on this site. Rejuran (PN) is salmon DNA fragments; Gouri (PCL) and Radiesse (CaHA) are a synthetic polymer and a mineral. This is tissue that came from a person.
This is not a topical cosmetic. It is an injected procedure performed in a clinic, and this layer is kept separate from the ingredient layer.
What is established
The skin-booster trial had twenty people
The 2026 study is a randomised, split-face, double-blinded trial in twenty adults with moderate cheek roughness. Particulate hADM went into one side of the face and hyaluronic acid into the other, with multiple parameters measured over 20 weeks using imaging and biophysical instruments.
The hADM side did better than the hyaluronic acid side at multiple time points on skin density, volume, elasticity, wrinkle depth, pore area, hydration and barrier-related parameters. No serious adverse events were observed.
The good parts of the design first. It is double-blinded, it splits one person's face, it has a control, and it measures with instruments rather than scoring by eye.
Now the limits. Twenty people. And more than seven parameters. Measure many parameters at many time points and some will come out significant by chance — and the abstract alone does not say which was the primary outcome.
The control being hyaluronic acid also matters. This is not a comparison against injecting nothing. Though since both sides received a needle, the effect of injection itself is largely cancelled out.
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 20 participants · 20 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint instrument measurement PMID 41828422
The 202-person nasolabial trial is a different product
A 2026 double-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial run in China. 202 adults with grade 3 or 4 nasolabial folds were randomised to a micronised acellular dermal matrix (mADM) filler or a cross-linked collagen filler; 175 completed follow-up.
The primary endpoint was the proportion achieving more than one grade of improvement on both left and right folds simultaneously. Three months after the last treatment: 88.4% against 85.4%; at six months, 70.9% against 69.7% — no difference (P > .05). The mADM group needed lower filling volumes and fewer supplemental injections.
At six weeks, global improvement and participant satisfaction favoured the collagen filler. We record that so as not to carry across only the favourable results.
One caveat must travel with this trial. Different product, different purpose. This is a filler approved in China used to fill a fold; the 20-person study above is a Korean skin booster aimed at skin texture. Sharing a material class does not license moving the 202-person result over as evidence for the booster.
This site flagged the same mistake on the CaHA page: filler trials quoted as if they supported the diluted technique.
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 202 participants · 26 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 41381953
Most of the paper is not about people
The paper carrying that 20-person trial appeared in a molecular biology journal, and its preclinical sections are much larger than the clinical one.
- Human skin (ex vivo): hADM distributed homogeneously through the dermis and extracellular matrix architecture was preserved. Basement-membrane-associated proteins were restored after UVB irradiation.
- Rat (in vivo): fibroblasts infiltrated the implanted matrix and localised new collagen formed within it.
- Cells (in vitro): increased fibroblast proliferation and matrix synthesis, increased hyaluronan production, suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in activated macrophages, and downregulation of melanogenesis-related genes in melanoma cells.
As a mechanistic account it is coherent — and it lines up with the material's own claim of supplying matrix directly rather than making collagen through inflammation.
But the thing this site keeps repeating applies here too. What is observed in a dish and in a rat is not an effect in people. Carrying 'melanogenesis genes went down in melanoma cells' across to 'helps with brightening' is an especially long jump.
- Excised-skin study — not a result from applying it to skin · Funding not declared PMID 41828422
- Animal study — not a result from applying it to skin · Funding not declared PMID 41828422
We could not verify which regulatory category it falls under
This material is derived from human tissue. Its regulatory category is therefore likely to differ from the other procedures here — it may fall under Korea's human tissue safety legislation rather than being a medical device or a drug.
We have not verified which, from an original source. We do not write down a classification we have not verified, so this page says 'being verified'.
Why leaving this blank matters is worth stating. A different regulatory track means a different approval process, different donor screening and infectious disease testing standards, different traceability obligations and a different adverse-event reporting route. For a material made from donated tissue, those procedures are a large part of what safety consists of.
When we verify the classification, it goes on this page as it reads.
Known risks
- Pain, swelling, bruising and redness at the injection site.
- Palpable nodules.
- This is a material made from donated tissue. Donor screening and processing are central to its safety, and those depend on the regulatory procedures we have not been able to verify.
- No serious adverse events were reported in trials of 20 and 175 people. An absence of reports is not proof of absence — rare events are invisible at that scale.
- This material has a short history of clinical use. Not enough time has passed to see late-onset problems.
- Any adverse reaction is something to have seen by the clinic that performed the procedure.
What is not established
- We have not verified the Korean regulatory category. That is the largest blank on this page.
- The skin-booster use rests on a single 20-person trial, never independently repeated.
- How long any effect lasts — follow-up ends at 20 weeks and six months.
- Which parameter was primary in the 20-person trial cannot be told from the abstract.
- Long-term safety — the clinical track record itself is short.
Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.
What this article relies on
- PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16