Dermatologists Dispute PRF Gains Over PRP Amid Thin Clinical Data

Dr Dray

Costly PRF treatments lack clinical trial backing to prove superiority over PRP for hair loss or skin rejuvenation because preparation methods remain unstandardized and unpredictable.

AI-assisted summary of PRP vs PRF: Which Is Better for Hair Loss & Skin Rejuvenation? — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-09-01

Key ideas

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has documented efficacy for androgenetic alopecia supported by multiple systematic reviews, whereas evidence for platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) remains sparse with far smaller patient cohorts. (4:16)
Despite promotional claims positioning PRF as a superior 'next-generation' therapy due to its sustained-release fibrin scaffold, clinical trials show no evidence of universal superiority over PRP for hair or skin. (9:01)
In facial and under-eye rejuvenation, PRP and PRF can modestly boost dermal collagen and elasticity, but neither can mechanically replace structural volume loss caused by bone or fat atrophy. (10:24)
The lack of standardized preparation methods—ranging from spin protocols to leukocyte filtration—makes real-world clinical outcomes highly variable and difficult to predict across providers. (1:40)

Detailed notes

## Background This video was published on YouTube by dermatologist Dr. Dray on September 1, 2026. According to the page description, it breaks down the science behind platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), evaluating the clinical evidence for hair loss and skin rejuvenation while assessing whether these costly treatments are worth the investment.

## TL;DR Dr. Dray examines whether platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) truly outperforms platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treating androgenetic alopecia and facial aging. While PRP has a larger body of evidence supporting modest improvements in hair density and skin elasticity, PRF research is still in its early stages with small sample sizes and unproven superiority claims. Both autologous treatments suffer from significant preparation heterogeneity and variable patient outcomes, meaning neither can replace established medical therapies like minoxidil or perform structural miracles like cosmetic surgery. Ultimately, she urges patients to prioritize an accurate underlying diagnosis and weigh steep out-of-pocket costs against unpredictable, maintenance-dependent results.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation is analytical, pragmatic, and refreshingly sober, serving as an evidence-based reality check against cosmetic industry marketing. Dr. Dray delivers her breakdown with direct, candid authority, patiently deconstructing biological claims while puncturing the hype surrounding 'next-generation' aesthetic trends. Watching it feels like sitting in an honest, unvarnished consultation with a discerning dermatologist who prioritizes clinical data, patient safety, and consumer financial protection over aesthetic fads.

## Bulletin - [04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has documented efficacy for androgenetic alopecia supported by multiple systematic reviews, whereas evidence for platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) remains sparse with far smaller patient cohorts. - [09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=541s) Despite promotional claims positioning PRF as a superior 'next-generation' therapy due to its sustained-release fibrin scaffold, clinical trials show no evidence of universal superiority over PRP for hair or skin. - [10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=624s) In facial and under-eye rejuvenation, PRP and PRF can modestly boost dermal collagen and elasticity, but neither can mechanically replace structural volume loss caused by bone or fat atrophy. - [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=100s) The lack of standardized preparation methods—ranging from spin protocols to leukocyte filtration—makes real-world clinical outcomes highly variable and difficult to predict across providers.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=0s) PRP isolates concentrated autologous platelets that release signaling molecules such as VEGF, PDGF, and TGF-β to stimulate angiogenesis and tissue remodeling. - [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=100s) PRP is not a standardized medical substance; variation in centrifugation speed, leukocyte presence, red blood cell contamination, and activation alters the biological profile of each preparation. - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=147s) PRF utilizes a modified spin cycle that forms a three-dimensional fibrin scaffold, theoretically allowing a slower, sustained release of trapped growth factors into tissue. - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=147s) A biologically plausible mechanism does not equate to clinical superiority, and marketing claims about PRF being inherently better than PRP outpace current scientific evidence. - [04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) Systematic reviews confirm PRP yields statistically significant increases in hair density for androgenetic alopecia, though study designs suffer from considerable heterogeneity. - [04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) An accurate diagnosis is mandatory before seeking hair loss therapies, as platelet-based concentrates are ineffective for causes outside pattern hair loss, such as nutritional deficiencies or inflammatory disorders. - [06:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=370s) Clinical evidence evaluating PRF for hair loss is in its infancy, limited primarily to small studies with brief follow-up periods. - [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=428s) For facial rejuvenation, autologous blood concentrates show the most consistent improvements in skin thickness and elasticity, with mixed results for fine wrinkles and hydration. - [10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=624s) Neither PRP nor PRF can replicate the structural volumizing effect of dermal filler or surgery in deep tear-trough hollows, serving only to subtly improve overlying skin quality. - [09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=541s) Rigorous head-to-head clinical trials comparing PRP directly against PRF are lacking, leaving no evidence that one is definitively better than the other. - [10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=624s) PRP and PRF should be considered adjuncts rather than replacements for established, evidence-based hair loss therapies like minoxidil, finasteride, or spironolactone. - [09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=541s) Older patient age and advanced, long-standing follicular miniaturization significantly decrease the likelihood of a positive response to platelet therapies. - [12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=729s) Prospective patients should interrogate providers on their exact centrifuge protocol, maintenance schedule, protocol-specific evidence, and management plan for non-responders before paying out-of-pocket.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=0s) What Are PRP and PRF?

Dr. Dray welcomes viewers and jumps straight into two of the most heavily discussed aesthetic and regenerative therapies on the market today: platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). For anyone investigating solutions for thinning hair, aging skin, or overall facial rejuvenation, these terms surface constantly, accompanied by big promises and significant price tags. At its baseline, PRP is an autologous treatment derived directly from a patient's own blood. A small blood draw is collected and spun down in a centrifuge to separate and isolate a concentrated suspension of platelets.

While platelets are best known for their essential role in blood clotting, they also act as reservoirs for biologically active signaling molecules and growth factors. These include vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β). Biologically, these compounds are responsible for driving angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels), ramping up collagen synthesis, accelerating tissue repair, and orchestrating cellular communication. The premise behind PRP therapy is straightforward: draw the blood, harvest the concentrated platelet fraction, stimulate the release of these beneficial factors, and reinject them into targeted problem areas such as the scalp or the face. While this mechanism makes biological sense on paper, Dr. Dray emphasizes that there is a critical catch prospective patients often overlook.

[01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=100s) The Problem of Non-Standardized PRP

The central complication with PRP is that it is not an off-the-shelf, uniform pharmaceutical product. "PRP is not just one thing," Dr. Dray stresses, and the sheer variation in how it is processed means that two different aesthetic clinics advertising "PRP injections" may be injecting radically different substances into a patient's scalp or face. Preparation techniques vary wildly across the medical landscape, fundamentally altering the biological profile of the final injectate.

This lack of standardization creates immense noise in the clinical literature, making it notoriously difficult to evaluate how consistently PRP performs. Key variables that alter the composition of PRP include:

- **Centrifugation protocols:** Some preparation systems rely on a single centrifugation cycle, whereas others utilize a two-spin method. - **White blood cell content:** Certain systems yield leukocyte-rich PRP containing elevated concentrations of white blood cells, whereas others intentionally filter leukocytes out to yield leukocyte-poor PRP. - **Red blood cell contamination:** Depending on the separation technique and precision, varying amounts of red blood cells may remain in the suspension. - **Platelet activation:** In some protocols, platelets are chemically activated prior to injection to immediately trigger growth factor release, while in others, they are left unactivated to release factors endogenously. - **Patient-specific physiology:** The baseline platelet count, plasma composition, and overall quality of the biological material vary widely depending on the patient's age, overall health status, and unique biology.

[02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=147s) What Is PRF and How Does It Differ?

Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is also derived from the patient's own blood, but it undergoes a different centrifugation protocol designed to preserve the clotting cascade so that a three-dimensional fibrin meshwork can form. Dr. Dray describes this fibrin architecture as a natural protein scaffold. Rather than immediately dumping an unanchored bolus of growth factors into the tissue, the PRF matrix physically traps platelets, leukocytes, and signaling proteins, theoretically enabling a localized, slow, and sustained release over time. A specialized variant called injectable PRF (i-PRF) remains liquid long enough to be injected into target tissues before the fibrin scaffold fully cross-links.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Comparison of PRP and PRF Processing Pathways accDescr: Flowchart detailing how drawn blood is processed into either PRP or PRF and their resulting biological mechanisms.

subgraph Preparation["Blood Processing"] Blood["Patient Blood Draw"] Blood --> Centrifuge["Centrifugation Process"] Centrifuge -->|"High speed / Anticoagulants"| PRP_Proc["PRP Fraction"] Centrifuge -->|"Low speed / No Anticoagulants"| PRF_Proc["PRF Matrix"] end

subgraph Delivery["Biological Delivery Mechanism"] PRP_Proc --> PRP_Action["Liquid concentrate of growth factors<br/>(Immediate, rapid release)"] PRF_Proc --> PRF_Action["3D Fibrin protein scaffold / i-PRF<br/>(Trapped platelets, slow sustained release)"] end

subgraph Target["Tissue Action"] PRP_Action --> Tissue["Target Tissue: Scalp or Dermis"] PRF_Action --> Tissue end ```

Clinics frequently market PRF as a superior, "next generation PRP." Dr. Dray acknowledges that the rationale sounds compelling: a slow-release scaffolding could theoretically keep signaling agents active in the tissue for a longer duration. However, she warns against falling for marketing spin: "Biologically plausible doesn't mean evidence-based and it doesn't automatically make PRF superior to PRP." PRP and PRF are not isolated, single-molecule drugs; they represent a complex cocktail of cytokines, adhesion molecules, plasma proteins, and extracellular vesicles influencing fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and immune pathways. While both therapies have been explored in fields like orthopedics and periodontics, evidence varies dramatically by application.

[04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) PRP for Hair Loss: Evidence and the Crucial Rule of Diagnosis

In dermatology, PRP has been evaluated most extensively for androgenetic alopecia (pattern hair loss). The theoretical mechanism centers on revitalizing miniaturized hair follicles by supplying vascular and cellular growth factors to coax dormant follicles back into the active anagen (growth) phase. This process aims to convert thin, wispy vellus hairs into thick, pigmented terminal hairs, thereby boosting overall hair density and visible coverage.

The clinical literature does offer legitimate support for PRP in pattern hair loss, though with substantial caveats regarding study design:

- **2024 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis:** Evaluated randomized controlled trials and confirmed that PRP demonstrated statistically significant increases in hair density when compared against placebo. - **Additional Systematic Review Data:** Corroborated measurable improvements in hair count and hair density, but highlighted that trial data suffered from high heterogeneity and variable study quality. - **2025 Systematic Review:** Analyzed 43 randomized controlled trials encompassing nearly 1,900 participants, affirming PRP's utility as a viable alopecia treatment while underscoring that disparate preparation methods and activation strategies significantly swayed patient outcomes.

Dr. Dray concludes that PRP is "not pure hype for hair loss," but cautions that it should never be viewed as a miracle cure. Above all else, it cannot replace an accurate medical diagnosis. As Dr. Dray puts it: "I will sing this until the cows come home. If you want to know what the best treatment for hair loss is... the question should be first and foremost what type of hair loss do you have? Without knowing that, we don't go any further in this process." Treating hair loss effectively depends entirely on identifying whether a patient is dealing with female pattern hair loss, telogen effluvium, thyroid disease, a nutritional deficiency, an inflammatory scalp disorder, or an autoimmune condition, as each condition requires an entirely different therapeutic roadmap.

[06:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=370s) Is PRF Effective for Hair Loss?

Because PRF is increasingly promoted as a superior upgrade to PRP for scalp injections, patients frequently ask whether they should opt for PRF instead. In theory, delivering growth factors within a prolonged-release fibrin scaffold could keep follicular signaling active over an extended period. Yet, Dr. Dray points out that the actual clinical research behind PRF is far less mature than the body of literature supporting PRP.

A 2024 systematic review evaluating injectable PRF for alopecia and facial rejuvenation revealed promising initial observations, but the dataset was remarkably thin: it included only seven studies comprising a modest total of 130 patients. The authors of that review explicitly stressed the critical need for larger, well-controlled trials with longer follow-up periods. Consequently, when cosmetic practices claim that PRF is definitively better than PRP or guarantees superior hair regrowth, Dr. Dray advises heavy skepticism, as robust scientific evidence simply does not yet exist to justify those claims.

[07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=428s) PRP, PRF, and the Under-Eye Dilemma in Skin Rejuvenation

Cosmetic use of platelet concentrates skyrocketed after the highly publicized "vampire facial" trend popularized by Kim Kardashian, and interest has only broadened since. PRP and PRF are widely sought after for smoothing fine lines, improving skin texture, addressing under-eye aging, increasing dermal elasticity, and softening acne scars. Unlike hyaluronic acid fillers, these treatments are not designed to restore volume mechanically; rather, they aim to supply the biological stimulus needed for cellular repair and endogenous collagen production.

The under-eye area represents one of the most frequent points of inquiry. As facial tissues age, volume depletion around the orbital rim produces prominent hollows, dark shadows, and puffiness. While many individuals seek alternatives because they fear the well-documented risks of dermal fillers in the delicate tear-trough region—where filler can look unnatural, migrate, or cause vascular issues even in experienced hands—the evidence for autologous blood concentrates remains an evolving story. A 2025 systematic review specifically assessing PRP and PRF in the periorbital area observed encouraging signals for PRF in refining texture and reducing superficial wrinkles.

[09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=541s) PRP vs. PRF: The Lack of Definitive Superiority

Reviewing the comparative literature, PRF shows some promise for fine lines and skin crepiness, whereas PRP historically carries stronger documented evidence for targeting hyperpigmentation. Crucially, systematic reviews conclude there is simply not enough solid evidence to claim that one modality is universally superior to the other. Furthermore, improvements documented after PRF sessions often diminish over time. Neither procedure is inherently safer than the other; both carry procedural risks and require realistic appraisal rather than uncritical acceptance of aesthetic marketing.

The core problem in determining which treatment is "better" is the absence of rigorous, objective head-to-head clinical trials. High heterogeneity plagues the existing research across multiple dimensions:

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Variables Influencing PRP and PRF Efficacy accDescr: Flowchart displaying technical preparation factors, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes.

subgraph Preparation["Preparation & Technical Variables"] A["Centrifugation Protocol"] B["Platelet & Leukocyte Concentration"] C["Platelet Activation Status"] D["Injection Depth & Technique"] end

subgraph Patient["Patient-Specific Factors"] E["Chronological Age"] F["Baseline Health & Growth Factor Levels"] G["Disease Severity & Duration"] end

subgraph Outcome["Clinical Result"] H["Highly Variable Response / Outcome"] end

Preparation --> H Patient --> H ```

- **Technical variability:** Centrifugation speeds, preparation kits, final platelet concentration, white blood cell counts, whether platelets are chemically activated prior to injection, injection depth, and the number of treatment sessions vary widely between practitioners. - **Patient age and biological vitality:** Older individuals generally possess lower baseline concentrations of platelet-derived growth factors compared to younger cohorts, altering potential regenerative efficacy. - **Disease duration and severity:** Long-standing androgenetic alopecia is significantly less likely to respond to PRP than newly emerging hair thinning with recent density reduction—a clinical reality shared across virtually all hair loss interventions.

---

[10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=624s) Are PRP and PRF Worth the Money?

When evaluating the cost-to-benefit ratio, both PRP and PRF are best viewed strictly as possible adjuncts rather than replacements for established, evidence-based therapies. For androgenetic alopecia, PRP has a more substantial body of literature than PRF, but it remains far from foolproof. Outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict: in clinical practice, some patients experience marked improvement, others see zero visible change, and a subset may even experience paradoxically worsened shedding or accelerated thinning. In this sense, paying out-of-pocket for these treatments can feel "like a lottery."

In facial aesthetics, both treatments have intriguing preliminary findings, but they cannot perform structural miracles. They will not replicate the lifting capacity of a surgical facelift, nor will they restore deep volumetric facial fat loss:

- **Skin quality vs. structural volume:** PRP and PRF can stimulate modest neocollagenesis, dermis thickening, and mild elasticity gains, which can subtly soften the appearance of under-eye hollows. - **Limits for tear troughs and dark circles:** Prominent structural hollowing caused by midface bone resorption and fat pad atrophy requires surgical intervention or structural filler, not superficial plasma injections. - **Hair loss foundation:** Autologous blood concentrates cannot replace gold-standard, proven medical therapies such as topical or oral minoxidil, finasteride, dutasteride, or spironolactone. They merely serve as secondary options for patients determined to exhaust every conceivable modality.

---

[12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=729s) Critical Questions to Ask Before Paying for Treatment

Because these procedures are fully elective and carry steep out-of-pocket costs, patients must critically interrogate prospective providers before consenting to care:

1. **Exact substance and processing:** "What exactly is being injected?" Is the provider using standard PRP or PRF, and if PRF, is it liquid injectable PRF (i-PRF)? What centrifuge system and processing steps are used? 2. **Treatment regimen and ongoing maintenance:** How many initial induction sessions are required, and what is the long-term maintenance schedule? Results are not permanent after a single round; sustaining benefits requires recurring treatments, all of which incur ongoing costs. 3. **Protocol-specific evidence:** What specific clinical evidence exists supporting the provider's exact preparation protocol and injection method, rather than broad, generalized marketing literature about PRP as an abstract concept? 4. **Failure protocol:** What is the clinic's recourse, follow-up strategy, or alternative treatment plan if the patient does not respond or experiences worsening hair loss?

---

[12:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=774s) Final Takeaways: Marketing vs. Science

PRP and PRF are supported by real biological mechanisms and genuine clinical science, but aesthetic industry marketing has raced far ahead of validated data. PRF is not automatically superior simply because it is marketed as the "next generation" iteration of platelet therapies. The primary challenge in real-world dermatology is identifying which providers have actually optimized their preparation parameters to deliver reproducible, reliable results—a nearly impossible task for the average consumer:

For individuals non-responsive to minoxidil, lack of efficacy may stem from sulfotransferase enzyme deficiency in the hair follicle or simply from advanced, fibrotic disease progression that no topical agent can reverse. In cases of advanced follicular miniaturization, PRP is equally unlikely to succeed. Patients must weigh allocating thousands of dollars toward clinic-based injections against more accessible, affordable medical therapies or at-home options such as low-level laser therapy (LLLT).

While regenerative platelet concentrates hold exciting potential in adjacent medical fields such as orthopedics and periodontics, their aesthetic and trichological application remains an evolving science. Patients should carefully balance procedural costs against realistic expected outcomes. Dr. Dray concludes by reminding viewers to stay protected with daily sunscreen and subscribe for upcoming updates.

## Notable quotes > [01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=100s) PRP is not just one thing — Dr. Dray

> [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=147s) Biologically plausible doesn't mean evidence-based and it doesn't automatically make PRF superior to PRP. — Dr. Dray

> [04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) I will sing this until the cows come home. If you want to know what the best treatment for hair loss is... the question should be first and foremost what type of hair loss do you have? Without knowing that, we don't go any further in this process. — Dr. Dray

> [04:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=256s) not pure hype for hair loss — Dr. Dray

> [10:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=624s) like a lottery — Dr. Dray

> [12:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA&t=729s) What exactly is being injected? — Dr. Dray

## Mentioned Dr. Dray, PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma), PRF (Platelet-Rich Fibrin), i-PRF (Injectable PRF), VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor), PDGF (Platelet-Derived Growth Factor), TGF-β (Transforming Growth Factor Beta), Kim Kardashian, Minoxidil, Finasteride, Dutasteride, Spironolactone

## Video description Dermatologist Dr. Dray breaks down PRP vs PRF, including how these platelet-based treatments work, what the research shows for hair loss, facial rejuvenation, wrinkles, skin texture, and under-eye concerns, and whether they are actually worth the cost.

PRP, or platelet-rich plasma, and PRF, or platelet-rich fibrin, are increasingly popular cosmetic and hair loss treatments. PRF is often marketed as a newer or more advanced version of PRP, but does the evidence actually show that PRF is better?

In this video, Dr. Dray explains the differences between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), why PRP is not a standardized treatment, and how preparation methods can affect the final product.

She also discusses the current evidence for:

• PRP for androgenetic alopecia and hair loss • PRF for hair growth • PRP for skin rejuvenation and anti-aging • PRF for wrinkles, skin texture, and elasticity • PRP and PRF for the under-eye area • Whether PRF is actually better than PRP • What to ask before spending money on PRP or PRF treatments • How realistic the results are for hair loss and cosmetic rejuvenation

While there is legitimate research supporting potential benefits from PRP, particularly for androgenetic alopecia, the evidence for PRF is less mature. Research on both treatments for facial rejuvenation is also limited by small studies, differences in preparation methods, and a lack of standardized treatment protocols.

Dr. Dray also explains why a biologically plausible mechanism does not necessarily mean that a treatment is clinically superior, and why consumers should be cautious about marketing claims that PRF is automatically the "next generation" or a dramatically better alternative to PRP.

Chapters

0:00 Introduction 0:24 What Are PRP and PRF? 1:40 PRP Is Not One Thing 2:27 What Is PRF? 3:28 What Does PRP Actually Do? 4:16 PRP for Hair Loss 6:10 What About PRF for Hair Loss? 7:08 PRP and PRF for Skin Rejuvenation 8:19 What About Under the Eyes? 9:24 PRP vs PRF: Which Is Better? 10:24 Is PRP or PRF Worth the Money? 12:09 What to Ask Before Paying for PRP or PRF 12:54 Final Takeaway

Bottom line: PRP and PRF are not pure hype, but neither should be considered a miracle treatment. PRP currently has a more established evidence base for certain types of hair loss, while PRF is promising but still requires more research. For cosmetic skin rejuvenation, both treatments may offer benefits, but the evidence is not strong enough to say that one is universally superior.

As always, Dr. Dray recommends discussing hair loss and cosmetic treatment options with a qualified medical professional who can evaluate individual circumstances and set realistic expectations.

#PRP #PRF #HairLoss #HairGrowth #Dermatologist #SkinRejuvenation #Alopecia #AndrogeneticAlopecia #AntiAging #CosmeticDermatology #PRPvsPRF #PlateletRichPlasma #PlateletRichFibrin

FTC: This video is not sponsored. Links are commissionable, meaning I may earn commission from purchases made through links.

💜Shop my Amazon store https://o.bttn.io/0BwiPWFIZLG 💜Follow me on liketoknowit https://www.liketoknow.it/drdrayzday 💜Social media Instagram @drdrayzday Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/drdrayzday/ Facebook @DrDrayzDay Twitter: @drdrayzday Tiktok: @drdrayzday

Disclaimer: This video is not intended to provide diagnosis, treatment or medical advice. Content provided on this Youtube channel is for informational purposes only. Please consult with a physician or other healthcare professional regarding any medical or health related diagnosis or treatment options. Information on this Youtube channel should not be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional. The statements made about specific products throughout this video are not to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa0XPk2UuHA)

中文简报

临床数据匮乏，皮肤科医生对PRF优于PRP的说法存疑价格昂贵的PRF疗法缺乏证明其在脱发或皮肤年轻化方面优于PRP的临床试验支持，因为其制备方法仍未标准化且效果难以预测。 Dr. Dray探讨了在治疗雄激素性脱发和面部衰老方面，富血小板纤维蛋白（PRF）是否真正优于富血小板血浆（PRP）。尽管PRP有更多证据支持其能适度改善头发密度和皮肤弹性，但PRF研究仍处于起步阶段，样本量较小且优势主张未经证实。这两种自体疗法都面临制备异质性显著和患者疗效各异的问题，这意味着两者都无法取代米诺地尔等既定药物疗法，也无法实现整容手术般的结构性奇迹。最终，她敦促患者优先明确根本诊断，并在高昂的自费成本与不可预测且依赖持续维持的效果之间进行权衡。多项系统评价支持富血小板血浆（PRP）对雄激素性脱发具有明确疗效，而富血小板纤维蛋白（PRF）的证据依然匮乏，涉及的患者队列规模也小得多。 (4:16) 尽管宣传声称PRF凭借缓释纤维蛋白支架成为更优异的“下一代”疗法，但临床试验并未显示其在头发生长或皮肤改善方面普遍优于PRP的证据。 (9:01) 在面部及眼下年轻化方面，PRP和PRF可适度促进真皮胶原蛋白生成和弹性恢复，但两者都无法在机械层面上替代由骨骼或脂肪萎缩导致的结构性容积缺失。 (10:24) 缺乏标准化的制备方法（包括离心方案到白细胞过滤等差异），导致不同医疗机构之间的实际临床效果差异极大且难以预测。 (1:40)

Reading summary

Dr. Dray explains that while platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) offer biologically plausible mechanisms for hair loss and facial rejuvenation, clinical evidence does not support claims of PRF's definitive superiority, leaving both as expensive, highly variable adjuncts. Biological Mechanisms and Preparation Inconsistencies (1:40) PRP isolates concentrated platelets from a patient's blood to supply growth factors such as VEGF, PDGF, and TGF-β, which stimulate angiogenesis and collagen synthesis via a rapid release. In contrast, PRF preserves the clotting cascade to create a three-dimensional fibrin scaffold, theoretically allowing a slower, sustained release of platelets and leukocytes into target tissues. Injectable PRF (i-PRF) remains liquid long enough to inject before cross-linking. However, Dr. Dray emphasizes that neither treatment is a standardized, uniform product. Formulations vary across clinics due to differing centrifugation protocols (single- versus two-spin), varying white and red blood cell concentrations, chemical activation choices, and patient-specific factors such as age and baseline biological vitality. This technical heterogeneity makes clinical outcomes difficult to predict and literature challenging to compare. Hair Loss Evidence and Diagnostic Dependency (4:16) In androgenetic alopecia, PRP has demonstrated measurable clinical utility. A 2024 meta-analysis confirmed statistically significant increases in hair density compared to placebo, and a 2025 systematic review of 43 randomized controlled trials encompassing nearly 1,900 participants affirmed its viability while highlighting the substantial impact of disparate preparation methods. By contrast, PRF literature remains sparse; a 2024 systematic review evaluating injectable PRF for alopecia and facial rejuvenation identified only seven studies totaling 130 patients, leading Dr. Dray to urge skepticism regarding marketing claims that PRF produces superior regrowth. Dr. Dray insists that no hair treatment should precede an accurate medical diagnosis. PRP cannot treat hair loss driven by telogen effluvium, thyroid dysfunction, nutritional deficiencies, or inflammatory and autoimmune scalp disorders, which each demand distinct therapeutic interventions. Aesthetic Rejuvenation and Structural Limitations (7:08) For facial aging, autologous blood concentrates serve as biological stimuli for endogenous collagen production and tissue repair rather than mechanical volume replacements like hyaluronic acid fillers. A 2025 review of 20 studies (514 patients) found the strongest support for skin thickness and elasticity, though effects on wrinkles and hydration were inconsistent. Umbrella reviews similarly note small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. In the under-eye region, PRF exhibits promise for refining texture and fine crepiness, whereas PRP historically holds better data for hyperpigmentation. Dr. Dray underscores that neither modality has proven universally superior, and gains often diminish over time. Crucially, neither treatment can correct structural hollowing caused by midface fat atrophy or bone resorption, which require surgical intervention or deep fillers. High Financial Costs and Clinical Assessment (10:24) Because autologous concentrates produce unpredictable results—ranging from noticeable improvement to no visible change or even paradoxical shedding—Dr. Dray characterizes paying for them as an expensive gamble. They cannot replace standardized, first-line medical treatments for hair loss, such as oral or topical minoxidil, finasteride, dutasteride, or spironolactone, and are unlikely to revive severely miniaturized, long-standing follicular loss. Before paying out-of-pocket for treatment, patients should press providers on specific technical details: the precise substance and centrifuge kit used, the required induction and ongoing maintenance schedules, published clinical data supporting that provider's exact protocol, and the clinic's failure contingency plan if the condition worsens. Dr. Dray concludes that while PRP and PRF are biologically grounded, aesthetic marketing has raced far ahead of verified clinical science. Because outcomes remain unpredictable and costs are high, patients should prioritize establishing a precise medical diagnosis and utilizing proven, accessible medical therapies before turning to autologous blood injections.

Source quotes

[1:40] Dr. Dray: PRP is not just one thing [2:27] Dr. Dray: Biologically plausible doesn't mean evidence-based and it doesn't automatically make PRF superior to PRP. [4:16] Dr. Dray: I will sing this until the cows come home. If you want to know what the best treatment for hair loss is... the question should be first and foremost what type of hair loss do you have? Without knowing that, we don't go any further in this process. [4:16] Dr. Dray: not pure hype for hair loss [10:24] Dr. Dray: like a lottery [12:09] Dr. Dray: What exactly is being injected?

Original transcript

[0:00] Well, hey guys. Welcome back. If you're [0:01] new here, I'm Dr. Dre. I'm a [0:03] boardcertified dermatologist. If you [0:05] have looked into treatments for hair [0:07] loss, aging skin, facial rejuvenation, [0:10] there's a good chance you have come [0:11] across PRP or PRF, and I know a lot of [0:15] you guys have many questions. What is [0:18] this? How does it work? Does it work? [0:20] And is it worth all of the hype? Is it [0:23] worth the investment? PRP stands for [0:25] plateletri plasma. It's made from your [0:27] own blood. A small amount of your blood [0:29] is taken and processed through a [0:31] centriuge to extract certain components. [0:34] The goal is to create a concentrated [0:36] preparation of your platelets. [0:37] Platelets, you may understand, are [0:39] involved in clotting of your blood, but [0:41] they do a lot more than that. They [0:43] contain a variety of beneficial [0:46] biologically active compounds like [0:47] vascular endothelial growth factor, [0:49] platelet derived growth factor and TGF [0:52] beta. These are growth factors involved [0:54] in processes like blood vessel [0:56] formation, stimulation of collagen [0:58] production, tissue repair and cellular [1:00] signaling. So the basic idea behind PRP [1:02] is you take your blood, you isolate the [1:05] platelets in a concentrated fraction. [1:07] And essentially you treat them to [1:09] release some of that good stuff and [1:10] inject it right back in where you want [1:12] it to go, like maybe your scalp for your [1:14] hair or maybe areas of your face for [1:17] facial rejuvenation. That sounds [1:19] appealing, I'm sure. And it's [1:21] biologically reasonable to assume that [1:23] it might work. But there's a catch [1:25] because PRP isn't a standardized [1:27] product. It's not something that they [1:29] just pick off the shelf and boom, there [1:31] it is. And they know exactly what it is [1:33] that they are using. It's one of the [1:35] biggest things I want you to understand [1:36] about these treatments because PRP is [1:39] not just one thing. There are many ways [1:41] to prepare PRP. For example, some [1:43] systems use one step of centrifugation [1:46] whereas others use two. Some [1:47] preparations are going to contain more [1:49] white blood cells than others. Others [1:51] are going to intentionally remove the [1:52] white blood cells. There can also be [1:54] differences in the platelet [1:56] concentrations and amounts depending on [1:58] the overall health of the person, the [2:00] age of the person, and well, just that [2:01] person, things that are unique to you, [2:03] your own plasma. Also, whether red blood [2:06] cells happen to be included, and are the [2:08] platelets being activated before they [2:09] are injected. Sometimes they are, [2:11] sometimes they're not. Importantly, what [2:13] kind of PRP? Because here's the thing to [2:15] remember. two clinics can advertise PRP [2:17] injections and they can end up injecting [2:19] something entirely different into your [2:21] scalp or your face or whatever it is [2:23] you're pursuing. This makes the research [2:25] on PRP very difficult to make any sense [2:27] of pr on the other hand stands for [2:29] plateletri fibbrin. It's also made from [2:31] your blood like PRP, but the processing [2:33] of it is different. Different [2:35] centrification conditions are going to [2:36] be needed to allow for the fibbrin [2:38] network to form. Think of fibbrin as a [2:40] three-dimensional protein scaffold. The [2:42] scaffold can trap platelets and other [2:44] growth factors locally and maybe allow [2:46] them to be present for longer and slowly [2:49] release over time. There's also [2:50] inversion called injectable PRF or IPF. [2:54] This is initially a liquid preparation [2:55] that can be injected before the fibbrin [2:58] matrix is formed. You might hear clinics [3:00] advertise PRF as next generation PRP. I [3:03] suppose there's an interesting [3:04] biological argument for this claim [3:06] because instead of simply injecting [3:09] concentrated growth factors, the PRF [3:12] offers this scaffolding that could allow [3:14] for maybe their localization and slow [3:17] sustained release over time. But [3:19] biologically plausible doesn't mean [3:21] evidence-based and it doesn't [3:22] automatically make PRF superior to PRP. [3:25] And the research gets even more [3:27] interesting cuz does any of this do [3:28] anything? When platelets are activated, [3:30] they release a variety of signaling [3:32] molecules which can influence [3:33] fiberblasts, endothelial cells, cells of [3:36] the immune system as well as cells [3:37] involved in tissue repair. For example, [3:39] the VEGF, it can promote blood vessel [3:41] formation. And the platelet derived [3:42] growth factor can influence cell growth [3:44] and tissue repair. While TGF beta plays [3:47] an important role in collagen production [3:48] and immune cell function. There are also [3:50] adhesion molecules, cytoines, plasma [3:53] proteins, extracellular vesicles that [3:55] can also be involved in this process. In [3:57] other words, PRP is not acting as a [3:59] single growth factor. It's sort of like [4:01] a mixed bag of different biological [4:03] agents, which is probably one of the [4:04] reasons why researchers have [4:06] investigated it for so many things. For [4:08] example, there's a lot of research on it [4:09] in the orthopedic literature as well as [4:12] periodontal disease. But the evidence is [4:14] not equally strong for all applications. [4:16] Probably one of the more popular uses of [4:18] PRP and dermatology is going to be for [4:20] hair loss. It's been studied most [4:21] extensively for androgenetic alopecia. [4:23] And the theory makes sense here because [4:25] growth factors might help to get the [4:28] miniatureized follicle back into the [4:29] growing phase. Converting that vevelis [4:32] baby peach fuzz hair back into a long [4:34] terminal hair that grows. The result is [4:36] an improvement in thickness, density, [4:38] and hair regrowth. Clinical studies have [4:41] shown increases in hair density in some [4:43] people getting PRP with androgenetic [4:45] alopecia. A 2024 systematic review and [4:47] meta analysis of randomized trials found [4:50] that PRP increased hair density compared [4:52] with placebo. Another systematic review [4:54] found that several randomized studies [4:56] reported improvements in hair density [4:58] and hair count. But this paper also [5:00] emphasized that the studies were quite [5:02] heterogeneous and that the quality of [5:04] the evidence remains a limitation. A [5:06] more recent 2025 systematic review [5:08] included 43 randomized control trials [5:10] which involved nearly 1,900 [5:12] participants. And this one also found [5:14] evidence supporting PRP as a potential [5:16] treatment for alipcia, but highlighted [5:18] the importance of differences in [5:20] preparation and activation approaches. I [5:22] think it's fair to say PRP is not pure [5:24] hype for hair loss, but I would not [5:26] describe it as a miracle treatment and [5:28] it's certainly not a replacement for an [5:30] accurate diagnosis, which I will sing [5:32] this until the cows come home. If you [5:34] want to know what the best treatment for [5:36] hair loss is, what the best thing you [5:38] can do for hair regrowth is the question [5:40] should be first and foremost what type [5:42] of hair loss do you have without knowing [5:44] that we don't go any further in this [5:46] process. Okay, what type of hair loss do [5:48] you what is the diagnosis that trumps [5:51] everything without the diagnosis all [5:54] this other stuff you're not able to [5:55] pursue. Okay, you need to know the [5:57] diagnosis first and foremost. female [5:59] pattern hair loss, tiloggen oflovium, [6:01] thyroid disease, nutritional disease, [6:03] inflammatory scalp disorder, autoimmune [6:06] hair loss. These are all different [6:08] disorders with unique treatment [6:10] approaches. So what about PRF then [6:13] plateletri fibbrin? Does that work for [6:15] hair loss? It's increasingly being [6:16] offered for hair loss. It's biologically [6:18] plausible that by injecting this [6:20] scaffold in that you would get similar [6:23] beneficial outcomes as far as perhaps [6:25] localized and sustained delivery and [6:27] release of important growth factors and [6:29] things of that sort to keep the hair [6:31] activated in the growing phase. But the [6:33] clinical research on PRF is a lot less [6:36] mature if you will than PRP. A 2024 [6:39] systematic review of injectable PRF for [6:42] alipcia and facial rejuvenation found [6:44] some promising results, but it included [6:46] only seven studies, 130 patients. And [6:49] the author specifically called out that [6:51] there's a need for larger studies with [6:53] control groups and of course longer [6:55] follow-up. So in other words, if a [6:57] clinic tells you that PRF is going to [6:59] grow your hair or that it's superior and [7:01] next generation and above and beyond [7:03] PRP, I'd be really skeptical of that [7:05] statement. We simply don't have strong [7:07] evidence to make this kind of claim. [7:09] What about for aesthetics, facial [7:10] rejuvenation? A lot of this grew in [7:12] popularity with, well, the Kim [7:14] Kardashian vampire facial craze, and [7:17] it's continued to grow. PRP and PRF are [7:19] increasingly being used for things like [7:21] fine line, texture, under eye [7:22] rejuvenation, elasticity, and scars. The [7:25] idea is not necessarily that you're [7:26] trying to add volume, but rather you're [7:28] trying to add the factors necessary for [7:32] healthy collagen production and for [7:34] better healing, recovery, ultimately [7:36] having a rejuvenation effect. A 2025 [7:39] systematic review of PRP and PRF for [7:41] facial rejuvenation that included 20 [7:43] studies in 514 patients. The strongest [7:46] evidence they found was for improvements [7:48] in skin thickness and elasticity. The [7:51] evidence for wrinkles and textures was a [7:52] lot more mixed and hydration was [7:55] particularly inconsistent. Another [7:57] umbrella review of systematic reviews [7:58] concluded that the evidence for PRP and [8:01] facial rejuvenation was still [8:02] insufficient to make firm conclusions [8:04] mostly because many of the underlying [8:06] studies were either small, uncontrolled, [8:08] or used entirely different treatment [8:10] protocols. So again, we're seeing [8:12] something interesting. There may be a [8:13] real effect there, but we're not at a [8:15] point where we can confidently predict [8:16] if, when, who, how this is going to work [8:19] or be beneficial. Probably one of the [8:20] most common sets of questions that I get [8:22] from folks these days is what about [8:24] using PRF under the eyes? I understand [8:26] why with age we experience a lot of [8:28] volume loss around the eyes that can [8:30] result in prominent under eye hollows, [8:32] dark circles and also under eye [8:34] puffiness, eye bags and there are a lot [8:36] of risks with cosmetic filler in this [8:38] area to restore loss volume for sure. [8:40] And many people are afraid of those [8:42] risks understandably. Filler is simply [8:44] not great around the eye frankly. Even [8:46] in the most skilled hands, it's risky [8:48] and usually the results over time, [8:50] they're just not quite what you were [8:52] expecting. A 2025 systematic review [8:54] comparing PRP and PRF for the perorbital [8:57] area found that PRF showed promise for [9:00] improving texture, wrinkles, and [9:01] crepiness. Uh while PRP appeared to have [9:03] stronger evidence for hyperpigmentation, [9:06] but importantly, the review concluded [9:07] that there wasn't enough evidence to say [9:09] one treatment is universally superior to [9:11] the other. And some of the improvements [9:13] observed with PRF diminished over time. [9:15] And these procedures are not without [9:17] risk either. They're not necessarily [9:19] inherently safer. So again, it's all [9:21] promising, but we need better research [9:22] to really be backing up some of the hype [9:24] around this stuff. And which one is [9:26] better? Again, we don't really have the [9:28] good quality research that compares the [9:30] two objectively. There's a lot of [9:32] heterogeneity out there as far as the [9:33] preparation, the protocol, what's being [9:35] treated, how they're using the [9:36] treatments. In other words, we don't [9:37] have a satisfying answer. There are so [9:39] many variables. The preparation method [9:41] really matters. The platelet [9:42] concentration matters, the white blood [9:44] cell concentration, whether or not the [9:46] platelets were activated, the injection [9:48] technique, how many treatments, and what [9:50] the heck you're treating in the first [9:51] place. Also, the age and background [9:54] health of the person. Older patients [9:56] probably don't have as robust [9:58] plateletder derived growth factor levels [10:01] as a younger patient. So, are they going [10:03] to get the same results? and the extent [10:05] and severity of the disease. [10:07] Long-standing androgenetic alopecia, for [10:09] example, is probably a lot less likely [10:12] to respond to PRP, for example, than [10:15] somebody who is early on and noticing [10:17] thinning and and a decrease in density, [10:20] which to be frank is pretty much true [10:22] for all hair loss treatments. And [10:24] probably what people want to know the [10:26] most is, well, is PRP or PRF worth the [10:28] money? If you're considering PRP or PRF [10:31] for aesthetic reasons or for hair loss, [10:34] I think it's best to approach them as [10:36] possible adjunct treatments. In other [10:38] words, I would not view them as [10:39] replacements for more established [10:41] therapies and uh interventions for [10:43] aesthetic rejuvenation that have a lot [10:46] more evidence backing them up. For hair [10:48] loss, PRP has a bit of a substantial [10:50] base compared to PRF as far as research, [10:53] but it's not that robust. And I do [10:55] caution people that it can be very [10:57] difficult to predict not only the [10:59] results that you have, but sometimes PRP [11:01] helps. Sometimes it does nothing. And in [11:03] some cases, it can even worsen the [11:05] androgenetic alopecia. So, it's a bit of [11:07] a lottery. In other words, for facial [11:09] rejuvenation, PRP and PRF both have [11:11] promising early studies, but more [11:13] research is needed. The evidence is [11:15] still pretty limited to small studies, [11:17] and there's a lot of heterogeneity out [11:18] there as far as preparation. It's not [11:20] going to give you a facelift and it's [11:22] really not going to replace or restore [11:24] loss volume in the face. It's not going [11:26] to change the game substantially for [11:29] under eye hollows. The best it can do is [11:31] potentially improve collagen production [11:34] thickness. The skin quality can get a [11:36] little bit more elastic and ultimately [11:38] that may ever so slightly improve upon [11:41] the appearance of under eye hollows. But [11:42] when it comes to prominent dark circles [11:44] under the eyes, provided they are [11:45] related to these age related volume [11:47] changes, bone loss, etc. Well, that's [11:50] going to be more the surgery route [11:53] rather than some kind of in-n-out [11:55] aesthetic treatment for hair loss. These [11:57] treatments are not going to replace the [11:59] standard good oldfashioned minoxidil, [12:02] the spironolactone, the finasteride, [12:04] dutasteride. But a lot of people are [12:06] willing to consider it. You know, they [12:07] want to do everything possible and if it [12:09] can help a little bit, they want they [12:10] want to give it a go. So, what should [12:12] you be asking for if you are going to [12:13] pursue this? Well, number one is what [12:15] exactly is being injected? Is it PRP? Is [12:17] it PRF? How is it being prepared? Is it [12:20] injectable PRF? And how many treatments [12:22] exactly am I going to need? Cuz again, [12:24] this stuff is not free. So, you want to [12:26] know that going in. And what is the [12:28] maintenance routine going to look like? [12:29] Because here's the thing, most of the [12:31] time, this isn't going to be a, oh, you [12:32] go in, you get PRP, and you know, your [12:34] face looks great, and that's it. You [12:35] need to come in and have some touchup [12:37] and repeat at a later date. And so, [12:39] you're going to have to pay for that. [12:40] And so, you want to factor that in as [12:42] well. Number three, ask them for what [12:44] evidence they have for the specific [12:45] protocol. not just PRP in general, but [12:48] the protocol that they're using and what [12:50] happens if it doesn't work? Because like [12:51] I said, these treatments, they can [12:53] become pretty expensive pretty quickly. [12:54] So, final takeaway, are PRP and PRF [12:57] worth the hype? I would say they're not [12:59] pure hype. There's real biology behind [13:01] the treatment, and there is legitimate [13:03] clinical research there, particularly [13:04] for hair loss and certain aspects of [13:07] skin rejuvenation. As with most things [13:09] in aesthetics, the marketing has gotten [13:11] way ahead of the science. And PRF is not [13:14] automatically better because it's newer. [13:16] The biggest limitation and issue right [13:19] now is that it's such a mixed bag. Like [13:21] there's so many differences in [13:22] preparation and am I getting something [13:24] that's worth it? It could be worth it [13:26] from someone who has really kind of [13:28] optimized the protocol in such a way [13:30] that they consistently get results. But [13:31] predicting who that is out there in [13:33] practice is like good luck. Good luck. [13:36] Okay. Um and which one is truly better? [13:38] Like should you pay a little bit more [13:40] for the PRF? We don't know what exactly [13:42] am I getting? What evidence supports it? [13:44] And of course, if you're trying to treat [13:46] hair loss, please know what type of hair [13:47] loss you have. And at the end of the [13:49] day, it's like, is PRP really going to [13:52] give you much above and beyond what you [13:54] can get from minoxidil? Yeah. Some [13:56] people don't respond to minoxidil. If [13:57] you don't respond to minoxidil, are you [13:59] likely to respond to PRP? You might. You [14:02] might not respond to minoxidil because [14:03] of an enzyme issue. Or you might not [14:05] respond to minoxidil because your hair [14:06] loss is just that far along that the [14:08] minoxidil is not going to touch it. In [14:10] which case is the PRP going to touch it? [14:12] We don't know. You see that's that's a [14:14] big issue because minoxidil you can go [14:16] to Costco and get you know what a 90-day [14:18] supply of it for it's not free either. [14:20] You know that's an investment. Where do [14:22] you want to spend your money? Do you [14:23] want to invest also in a low-level laser [14:26] therapy device at home? You know is that [14:28] a better use of your funds? These are [14:30] all things that we don't really have the [14:32] good head-to-head studies. We know that [14:34] this bag of things works. This bag of [14:36] things appears promising and some early [14:39] evidence that it can work, but not [14:42] enough to really like conclusively say, [14:44] "Oh, yeah, this is going to get this [14:45] kind of results in at least this [14:47] percentage of people with X, Y, and Z." [14:49] All right, y'all. I hope today's video [14:51] was helpful and explaining what the heck [14:52] these treatments are, how they work, and [14:54] what the evidence behind them actually [14:56] is for not just hair loss, but for skin [14:59] rejuvenation purposes. Now, like I said, [15:02] there are so many other things out there [15:04] that this stuff is being tested out for, [15:06] like orthopedics, periodontal disease, [15:08] which is kind of above and beyond my pay [15:10] grade as far as knowledge base. Um, so I [15:12] didn't cover those things in today's [15:13] video. So, it's definitely a really cool [15:15] area of therapeutic um development and [15:18] active ongoing research. I just, you [15:21] know, I don't I just don't think we're [15:22] there yet for hair loss and skin [15:24] rejuvenation. But that doesn't stop [15:26] clinics from trying it, from doing it. [15:27] And I'm not saying that they're [15:28] necessarily all bad for putting it out [15:31] there, but you do have to factor in the [15:33] level of evidence and the cost that it's [15:34] going to be for you and whether or not [15:36] it's something worth your while. So [15:38] hopefully today's video helped you guys [15:39] out in making that decision or [15:41] navigating it or at least beginning to [15:42] think about if this is something that [15:44] you want to pursue in the future. I hope [15:46] you guys enjoyed today's video. If so, [15:47] give it a thumbs up, share it with your [15:48] friends. And as always, don't forget [15:50] sunscreen and subscribe. I'll talk to [15:52] you guys tomorrow. Bye. [15:55] [music] [15:55] Heat. Heat. N. [16:12] [music]