Route · Device-based

Microneedling: adding a 70% glycolic peel beat microneedling on its own

In a 2021 review of nine randomised trials, microneedling was effective for atrophic acne scars both as monotherapy and in combination, and **no serious adverse effects were reported in any study.** And in a 60-person randomised trial, **microneedling plus sequential 70% glycolic acid peels beat microneedling alone** on both scar score and skin texture.

Last checked Sep 17, 2026

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

Microneedling punctures the skin repeatedly with fine needles to disrupt dermal collagen and exploit the repair response. The idea is to physically cut the fibres tethering scar tissue; in Korea it goes by names like dermapen, MTS and dermaroller.

It is easily confused with this site's microneedle radiofrequency page. Both use needles, but that one emits radiofrequency from the needle tips. This page is about needles used for mechanical stimulus alone.

This is not a topical cosmetic. It is a clinic procedure, and this layer is kept separate from the ingredient layer. Home rollers are sold, but every trial below was run in a medical setting.

We have not opened the Korean device approval record, so the classification here says 'being verified'.

What is established

Moderate evidence

Nine randomised trials — consistently effective

The 2021 systematic review searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar for literature published over the last 20 years, and kept only randomised controlled trials with full text available. Nine remained.

The findings:

All treatment modalities showed consistent results that microneedling was efficacious for atrophic acne scars — as monotherapy and in combination with other treatments.
No serious adverse effects were reported in any of the studies.

The authors' conclusion: microneedling is a well-tolerated and effective modality for treating atrophic acne scars. But further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is required.

Why this rates 'moderate' on this site's ladder: nine randomised trials is unusually firm for this layer. Against that, the review is a narrative synthesis rather than a meta-analysis, the individual trials vary in size and control arm, and the authors themselves flag sample size and follow-up as limits.

One more thing — the review groups dermaroller and fractionated microneedle radiofrequency together under 'microneedling'. The third item below deals with that.

Randomised controlled trial in people (9) · sample size not reported · Compared with not stated in the abstract · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 33538106

Moderate evidence

Adding a glycolic peel made it better

A 2017 randomised controlled trial in India. Sixty patients with atrophic acne scars were split into two groups.

Group 1: microneedling at weeks 0, 6 and 12
Group 2: microneedling at weeks 0, 6 and 12 plus 70% glycolic acid peels at weeks 3, 9 and 15

At week 22 a blinded observer scored acne scars (ECCA), and participants rated scar and texture improvement on a visual analogue scale. 52 of the 60 completed the 22 weeks.

The result: the decrease in mean ECCA score was greater in group 2 than group 1, and group 2 also rated better on texture.

The authors' conclusion: adding sequential 70% glycolic acid peels to microneedling gives better scar improvement than microneedling alone, and also improves skin texture.

Read this alongside two other pages on this site.

On the glycolic acid page we wrote that the best evidence for that ingredient is a 1996 trial of an 8% cream. What was used here is 70%, as a clinic peel. Same substance, an entirely different concentration band — which is exactly why that page says high-strength peels are outside its scope.
On the microneedle radiofrequency page, adding it to a laser showed no additional gain. Here, adding a peel did. 'More is better' is not automatically true; it depends on what you add.

The limits: 8 of 60 dropped out, and the blinding applied only to the observer. Anyone who received a peel knew it, so their own texture ratings deserve corresponding caution.

Randomised controlled trial in people · 60 participants · 22 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 29072375

Not established

The name 'microneedling' covers two different procedures

This item is not about a result. It is about classification.

The 2021 review above gives as examples of microneedling 'dermaroller and fractionated microneedle radiofrequency' — two things gathered under one name.

But they differ.

Dermaroller and dermapen: needles that puncture skin, using mechanical stimulus only.
Microneedle radiofrequency: needles that emit radiofrequency energy from their tips, creating thermal injury in the dermis.

One has an extra energy source, and recovery and risk are not the same. This site keeps them on separate pages.

So the review's conclusion needs care. If 'microneedling is efficacious' pools results from both procedures, that sentence cannot tell you how much of it belongs to the mechanical-only version.

This is why this site organises procedures by mechanism. Sharing a name does not make two things the same.

PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스

Known risks

Pain during treatment; erythema and fine crusting for a few days after.
Infection. Needles pierce skin, so antisepsis and single-use needles matter.
Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. More caution in darker skin.
Granulomas and allergic contact dermatitis — because whatever is applied during treatment can enter the dermis. This is why putting any cosmetic you like on a home roller is risky.
Active acne, infection or a tendency to keloids all call the procedure itself into question.
Any adverse reaction is something to have seen by the clinic that performed the procedure.

What is not established

There is no standard for needle depth, number of sessions or interval.
Because the review pools dermaroller with microneedle radiofrequency, the share belonging to mechanical stimulus alone is hard to separate.
We did not identify a trial on this page comparing against having no treatment.
Evidence for home rollers is not covered here; every trial above was run in a medical setting.
We have not verified the Korean device approval class.

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