What this site is for
It exists to answer a question that advertising does not: what is this trend actually, and what does the evidence and the regulatory status support? The turn away from over-filling is real, and people arrive at it for good reasons. The vocabulary that has grown up around it borrows the authority of mechanisms that have not been demonstrated, and a good deal of what is sold under that vocabulary is unsupported. Separating the two is the whole purpose of this review.
What it deliberately does not do
It carries no booking prompt, no appointment call to action and no steering towards treatment. It does not name a product by brand, does not quote dosages or prices, does not recommend or advise against treatment, and does not diagnose. It does not cite individual studies, and it describes the state of the evidence in general terms. Where a claim is contested, the text says so rather than resolving it by assertion.
The facts kept visible
Three facts are repeated wherever they are relevant. Filler results are temporary and need upkeep, and over-filling changes how a face reads — those two are established. Only one substance class has a labelled reversal agent, and reversal acts on what it reaches rather than removing everything. The mechanism written into the name filler fatigue, that the tissue is tired or damaged, is not established at all.
How the content is reviewed and corrected
Ke He, MD, Deputy Director and Head of Skin & Laser Aesthetics, is the responsible physician. Because this subject moves quickly, the review is maintained on a three-month cycle rather than the twelve-month cycle used elsewhere in this cluster, and an out-of-cycle revision is made when a regulatory status changes or when evidence materially changes what is established. If you find something unclear, out of date or wrong, the contact page explains how to tell us.