August 10, 2026
Under eye filler and polynucleotides solve different problems, and the right choice depends on what is actually causing your tired look. A 2026 review in the Journal of Clinical Medicine sums up the evidence: hyaluronic acid filler remains the standard for a genuine hollow (volume loss), while polynucleotides show consistent improvements in skin quality, elasticity, hydration and fine lines. Neither is universally better; they answer different questions.
What each treatment actually does
Hyaluronic acid filler is a gel that physically replaces lost volume, so it can smooth a true tear trough hollow in a single visit. Polynucleotides are injectable biostimulators derived from purified DNA fractions: rather than adding volume, they signal fibroblasts to produce collagen and elastin, gradually improving skin thickness, texture and hydration. UK industry bodies such as Save Face describe the under eye as the area where this regenerative approach has become most established.
What the 2026 evidence says
The 2026 Journal of Clinical Medicine review concludes hyaluronic acid remains superior for structural correction, while polynucleotides show consistent gains in dermal quality measures including elasticity, hydration and fine wrinkles. Polynucleotide protocols in published studies typically involve a short course of sessions spaced weeks apart, with gradual results over two to three months. Evidence for polynucleotides is growing but still younger than the decades of filler data, and much of it comes from small or open label studies.
Risks and downtime in the under eye area
The tear trough is one of the least forgiving areas for filler: the same 2026 review notes complications such as the Tyndall effect (a bluish tint from superficially placed gel) and malar edema (persistent puffiness), which is why practitioner selection and conservative dosing matter so much. Polynucleotides carry the usual injection related effects, typically small bumps and bruising that settle within days. Both treatments should only be performed by a trained healthcare professional after a face to face assessment.
How a practitioner decides, and when both make sense
A good assessment starts with the cause: a structural hollow points toward filler, while crepey, thin or dull skin with fine lines points toward polynucleotides. Many patients have both problems, and some practitioners stage the treatments, improving skin quality first and reassessing whether volume is still needed. A reputable clinic will examine you in person, explain which problem they are treating and why, and be comfortable recommending neither if the area does not need treatment.
Common questions
Are polynucleotides better than filler for dark circles?
It depends on the cause. Shadowing from a true hollow responds to filler, while darkness from thin, crepey skin tends to respond better to polynucleotides. A face to face assessment is the only reliable way to tell which applies to you.
How many polynucleotide sessions are needed under the eyes?
Published protocols typically use a short course, often two to three sessions spaced a few weeks apart, with results building gradually over two to three months. Your practitioner will confirm a plan at consultation.
Is under eye filler safe?
In trained hands it is an established treatment, but the tear trough is technically demanding, with recognized complications such as the Tyndall effect and persistent puffiness. Choose an experienced healthcare professional and expect a thorough assessment before any needle is picked up.
Where Sulaia helps
Treatment Completion Engine
A complete, audit-ready record in under a minute.
See how it works