Route · Device-based

Micro-coring: the entire human literature on this technology is 112 patients

An independent systematic review in 2025 counted every study of this technology — eight, three of them in pigs. The clinical studies are five, 112 patients in all, and there is not one randomised comparison. That review wrote that larger cohorts, longer follow-up and comparisons with other minimally invasive techniques are needed. The 2026 paper that followed is retrospective, single-site, 10 patients and single-sex, and its conclusion calls it 'an effective alternative to injectable fillers' — with no filler comparison arm.

Last checked Oct 2, 2026

Start here

What it is: A device that removes full-thickness cores of skin with very fine hollow needles. There is no line of stitches.
What it is used for: For wrinkles and laxity of the lower face.
How it is said to work: It is described as removing a little skin so that what remains is drawn tighter, with collagen and elastin formed in the process.

There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.

At a glance

Session length: 30–60 min
Pain: ModerateReported in a trial
Downtime: 3–7 days
Sessions: 1–3 sessions
How long it lasts: Not applicable
Relative cost: Higher
How well established: Not established

“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.

Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.

This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.

Korean classification Being checkedThe regulatory class has not yet been confirmed against a primary document. It will be filled in once it is.

Micro-coring is a device that removes full-thickness cores of skin with very fine hollow needles.

One thing about it is mechanically different from the other devices on this site: it actually takes tissue away.

microneedling — punctures to provoke a response. It removes nothing
radiofrequency and ultrasound — use heat to contract and remodel. They remove nothing
excisional surgery — removes, but leaves a line. Facelift and neck lift do
micro-coring — is described as removing without leaving a line

If that description holds, it fills a place this layer did not have. That is why this site carries it.

But the size of the evidence has to come first.

In 2025 a group at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School reviewed the whole literature on this technology. Not from the manufacturer's side. And they wrote this.

eight studies in total
three of them preclinical in vivo porcine studies
five clinical studies, 112 patients in all
larger cohorts, longer follow-up, comprehensive histology and comparisons with other minimally invasive techniques are needed

This is a different situation from 'one trial is weak'. On the hydradermabrasion page we wrote that one trial had no control group. Here the whole literature is 112 people. And there is no randomised comparison.

The 2026 paper that followed is the other story on this page.

Ten patients, retrospective, single-site, and the limitations the paper lists include a single-sex population. Yet the conclusion reads 'an effective alternative to injectable fillers'. There is no arm that received filler. This site does not carry that sentence as a conclusion.

And the authors' interests are stated in the paper — three of four are consultants or advisory board members for the manufacturer, and one receives royalties and holds intellectual property. The paper disclosed it, and this site carries the disclosure.

This site does not deal in prices, clinics or reviews.

What is established

Not established

The whole literature is eight studies and 112 people — with no randomised comparison

A systematic review in Dermatol Surg (2025) and a retrospective study in Lasers Surg Med (2026).

The review first. It is the centre of this entry.

PRISMA-compliant, searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane for 'micro-coring' OR 'microcoring'. Risk of bias and quality assessment were conducted. It was done at the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and the Cutaneous Biology Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital — not the manufacturer's side.

The results.

eight studies were included — three preclinical in vivo porcine studies, and five clinical studies involving 112 patients
the studies evaluated various designs, differing in needle size, depth, number and treatment density
current evidence indicates micro-coring improves skin quality through tissue removal, skin tightening, and epidermal and dermal regeneration and remodelling
clinically it has most commonly been investigated for facial rhytids, with emerging applications for enlarged pores and acne scars
safety — mild pain and trace-to-moderate bleeding during the procedure, and trace-to-moderate post-procedure adverse skin effects
the conclusion — promising and seemingly well tolerated, but studies with larger patient cohorts, longer follow-up, comprehensive histological analyses and comparisons with other minimally invasive techniques are needed to confirm outcomes

Now the 2026 retrospective study.

Retrospective, single-site, with 10 patients meeting the study criteria. Assessment used the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale (LWSS) and the global esthetic improvement scale (I-GAIS).

mean I-GAIS 1.7 (SD 0.36)
mean change from baseline in LWSS — nasolabial folds 1.1 (0.46), marionette lines 1.3 (0.3), lip lines 0.6 (0.35)
most subjects had some improvement across all three areas, with many experiencing improvements of more than one point
the paper's limitations — the retrospective design, the small study population, and the single-sex population
the conclusion — in the real-world setting it leads to improvements in global appearance and wrinkle severity, and it is an effective alternative to injectable fillers for the nasolabial fold and marionette and perioral lines

How to read it.

First, this entry is not 'one trial is weak'. The whole literature is eight studies, three of them in pigs. The clinical side is 112 patients across five studies. Set against other device pages on this site, several single trials are larger than that.

Second, there is no randomised comparison. Among the five, the review reports neither a sham control nor a split-face design. And the review itself wrote that comparisons with other minimally invasive techniques are needed.

Third, and yet there is the sentence 'an effective alternative to injectable fillers'. It comes from a retrospective study of ten people with no arm that received filler. This site does not write a comparative sentence without a comparison. That is why it is not in the summary.

Fourth, the settings differed. Needle size, depth, number and density vary between studies. Which makes pooling five studies as 'the same procedure' something to be careful about. This site wrote the same problem on the laser pages — different settings are a different procedure.

Fifth, the interests. Of the four authors of the 2026 paper, three are consultants or advisory board members for the manufacturer, and one receives royalties and holds intellectual property. The paper disclosed this. This site records it as industry funding. The 2025 review, from a university hospital, is left as 'unclear'.

Sixth, one thing is in this device's favour — what is measured is relatively well defined. Wrinkle depth is graded on a fixed scale (LWSS). That is easier to handle than an endpoint that shifts with posture and lighting, as on cellulite. But it is still a person's eye, and whether it was blinded we could not confirm in these two papers.

Seventh, we write the figure that looks small. Of the three areas, the change in lip lines was 0.6, the smallest. We do not write only the good side.

So it sits at 'not established'. What that badge means is not 'it does not work' but 'the literature is still 112 people'. And the fact that the group who wrote that sentence has no tie to the manufacturer is the heaviest part of this page.

Open-label trial in people (5) · 112 participants · Compared with no control group (before-and-after only) · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 40116370
Open-label trial in people · 10 participants · Compared with no control group (before-and-after only) · Funding manufacturer-funded · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 42070267

Known risks

This removes skin. It is not the same as puncturing it. The review above reported mild pain and trace-to-moderate bleeding during the procedure, and trace-to-moderate skin effects after.
Dot-shaped marks are possible, because full-thickness cores are taken. This site does not guarantee 'no scarring' — the 112-patient literature has no long follow-up.
Pigment change is possible, and more visible on darker skin. And which skin colours were inside that 112 we could not confirm from these two papers.
Bruising is possible. See the bruising page alongside.
If you tend to keloid, say so. This takes skin at full thickness. See the scars and intralesional 5-fluorouracil pages.
Recovery time is needed. Holes are made in the surface, so care is needed while they heal. Do not use irritating ingredients during that time.
Cold sores can be reactivated. The area around the mouth is often treated. Say so in advance if you have a history.
A period of sun avoidance is needed. See sunscreen.
With substantial laxity, other options are worth comparing. There is no trial yet to support that comparison.

What is not established

The whole human literature is 112 patients. It is this page's largest gap, and the review itself asked for larger cohorts.
There is no randomised comparison. The review reports no sham or split-face design. And a split-face design is not especially hard for this procedure.
There is no trial against filler, thread lift or microfocused ultrasound. Yet the 2026 paper's conclusion calls it an alternative to filler. That sentence was written without a comparison.
How long it lasts is unknown. With no long follow-up, we left the duration field empty.
How many sessions it assumes we could not confirm either.
The settings differ between studies. Needle size, depth, number and density vary, which makes reading the five as one thing difficult.
On pores and acne scars the material is at the level of 'emerging applications'. So this site did not file this page under those concerns.
Results by skin colour we could not confirm.
We have not yet opened the primary Korean regulatory classification, so it stays 'being verified'.

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