PRP vs PRF Under Eyes: What Each Does, What Studies Show, and When Filler Fits Better
Start with our pillar guide: Argireline vs Matrixyl: Mechanisms, Trials and Which to Use, or browse all Reviews & Comparisons articles.
PRP vs PRF under eyes: both are made from your own blood, and the best review found no proof that one beats the other. In a 2025 systematic review of 14 studies, PRP leaned toward fading pigmentation and PRF toward smoother texture and fine lines. PRF gains often faded by 6 months. Neither one is proven to replace filler for hollows. Evidence: Limited.
Key takeaways
- A 2025 systematic review of 14 studies concluded that "current evidence does not support the superiority of one modality over the other" (Sollitto et al., 2025).
- The same review found that PRF improvements "often diminished by 6 months," while PRP pigmentation results held over similar intervals (Sollitto et al., 2025).
- A 2026 systematic review of 26 studies called PRP/PRF "only moderately effective" for under-eye pigmentation (Tai et al., 2026).
- In a 30-person randomized trial for dark circles, 53.3% of PRP patients didn't respond, compared with 6.7% of patients who received fat transfer plus nanofat (Kadry et al., 2023).
- An umbrella review rated confidence in 12 of 13 facial-PRP systematic reviews as low or critically low (Cruciani et al., 2024).
This page covers PRP, PRF, PRFM and PRF gel. If your main concern is a sunken groove rather than color or crepey skin, start with our guide to under-eye hollows and tear-trough filler.
What's the difference between PRP, PRF, PRFM and PRF gel?
All four are autologous platelet concentrates, meaning they're made from your own blood. PRP is a liquid. PRF is spun differently so that it forms a fibrin mesh, a web of clotting protein that holds platelets in place.
- PRP (platelet-rich plasma): a liquid platelet concentrate injected into or under the skin. A 2020 narrative review proposes that it works by increasing fibroblast (collagen-making cell) proliferation, the expression of MMPs (enzymes that remodel tissue) and collagen synthesis (Kassir et al., 2020). That mechanism is described, not measured, in under-eye trials.
- Injectable PRF (I-PRF): described in a case series as a "second generation" product with a three-dimensional fibrin meshwork that stays fluid like PRP. The authors report "favorable results" for periorbital use but give no data (Shashank & Bhushan, 2021).
- PRFM (platelet-rich fibrin matrix): in one study, blood was spun at 700 rpm for 5 minutes and the PRFM was injected at the sub-dermis around the eyes (Mahmoodabadi et al., 2023).
- PRF gel: a 2026 technique article combines denatured (heated) albumin, spun at 2,600 rpm for 7 minutes, with liquid PRF, spun at 1,100 rpm for 5 minutes, in a 3.5:1.5 cc ratio (Rahbari et al., 2026). One author is medical director of CosmoFrance, which makes PRF gel kits.
Preparation is not standardized. A 2026 review said "notable variability in preparation methods" limited its conclusions (Tai et al., 2026). An Indian dermatology task force noted "ambiguity regarding the ideal protocol" (Nanda et al., 2021). Evidence: Limited.
| Feature | PRP | PRF (incl. PRFM and PRF gel) |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Liquid platelet concentrate | Platelets in a fibrin mesh; injectable versions stay fluid |
| Example preparation in studies | Varies widely; no standard protocol | PRFM: 700 rpm for 5 min. Gel: denatured albumin plus liquid PRF, 3.5:1.5 cc |
| What studies suggest it helps | Pigmentation (stronger evidence) | Texture, wrinkles, crepiness |
| How long gains lasted | Pigmentation results sustained at similar intervals | Often diminished by 6 months |
| Volume (hollows) | Not shown on its own | Gel: expert opinion only, no outcome numbers |
| Evidence label | Limited | Early / preliminary |
Bottom line: No proven winner. Sources: Sollitto 2025, Mahmoodabadi 2023, Rahbari 2026.
Does PRF work under the eyes?
There is some evidence that PRF helps texture and fine lines, but the gains often faded by 6 months. Most PRF-specific data come from small uncontrolled studies and expert articles.
The core source is a 2025 systematic review of 14 studies comparing injectable PRP and PRF around the eyes. It linked PRF to improvements in skin texture, wrinkles and crepiness, and found that those improvements "often diminished by 6 months" (Sollitto et al., 2025). The authors declared no conflicts. A 2026 narrative review reached the same pattern: PRF improved texture and wrinkles (Shah et al., 2026).
The main eye-specific PRFM trial was uncontrolled. Per the full text, it enrolled 16 participants (8 men, 8 women) over age 30 and assessed them at 12 weeks with a Visioface imaging system. The authors report "noticeable improvement" in wrinkles and periocular hyperpigmentation but give no numbers in the abstract (Mahmoodabadi et al., 2023). They declared no competing interests. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
Does PRP help under-eye dark circles?
Modestly, and mainly for color, in small studies. PRP made dark-circle color more even in some trials, but it didn't reliably change melanin or wrinkles.
- Single session, 10 people: 1.5 mL of PRP was injected intradermally into each tear trough and crow's feet area. At 3 months, color homogeneity improved (P = 0.010). Melanin content, hydration, wrinkle volume and wrinkle visibility did not change significantly. Participant satisfaction averaged 2.2 on a 0–3 scale (Mehryan et al., 2014). The study was uncontrolled, and funding was not stated.
- 2 sessions, 30 women: in this full-face PRP study with no control group, a blinded second dermatologist rated dark circles as moderately to well improved in 34.8% of participants at 3 months and 52.2% at 6 months (P = 0.025). Wrinkle changes were not significant by that rater (Banihashemi et al., 2021). The authors declared no commercial conflicts.
- Split-face, 68 women: platelet-poor plasma (PPP) gel was injected on one side and PRP on the other, in 3 sessions 2 weeks apart. Both sides improved, and PPP gel improved significantly more (Neinaa et al., 2020). Whether the side assignment was randomized isn't confirmed, so treat this as a split-face comparison rather than an RCT. Funding was not stated.
Reviews are cautious. A 2021 meta-analysis of 19 periorbital PRP studies (455 patients) found higher satisfaction than controls across 3 RCTs (p = 0.001), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 64%) (Evans et al., 2021). A 2021 systematic review of 39 studies listed PRP among effective options for dark circles but warned of a "scarcity of high-quality evidence" (Michelle et al., 2021). Across the whole face, only 17% of dyschromia (uneven color) studies reported significant improvement after PRP/PRF (Qin et al., 2025). Evidence: Limited.
PRP vs PRF under eyes: which is better?
No proven winner. The reviews don't agree, and the disagreement tracks with who wrote them.
The 2025 systematic review found that PRP had "stronger evidence for treating hyperpigmentation" and PRF was linked to texture gains, but concluded that the evidence doesn't support either being superior (Sollitto et al., 2025). A 2025 narrative review that ran a systematic search for RCTs says the few PRP vs PRF comparisons all favored PRF. It also flags small samples and non-standard assessments (Davies & Miron, 2025). Co-author Richard Miron is the founder of BioPRF. We couldn't confirm which studies that review counted.
So the practical pattern is by concern: pigment points toward PRP, and crepey texture points toward PRF (Shah et al., 2026). That pattern comes from small studies, not from head-to-head trials designed to pick a winner. Evidence: Mixed / contested.
Can PRP or PRF replace under-eye filler for hollows?
Not on current evidence. Reviews still treat filler or fat as the main option when the problem is volume loss.
A 2026 systematic review of 50 studies concluded that "fillers remain foundational for volume loss" and that surgery is preferred for herniated fat and poor lower-eyelid support (Beer et al., 2026). The 2021 dark-circle review found soft tissue fillers and autologous fat grafting most effective when circles come from volume loss (Michelle et al., 2021). We compare filler options in detail in our guide to treating under-eye hollows.
In the 30-person single-blind RCT, fat transfer plus nanofat outperformed PRP for dark circles of mixed causes, for both improvement (p = .048) and satisfaction (p = .032). Follow-up length isn't given in the abstract, and funding was not stated (Kadry et al., 2023).
Show data table
| Group and response | Share of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| PRP: excellent | 20% |
| PRP: moderate | 13% |
| PRP: non-responder | 53.3% |
| Fat + nanofat: excellent | 46.7% |
| Fat + nanofat: moderate | 27% |
| Fat + nanofat: non-responder | 6.7% |
One 30-person trial. The abstract doesn't report the remaining response categories, so the bars don't add to 100%.
Two findings point the other way, with caveats. In an 80-person RCT of people with periorbital wrinkles and eyelid laxity, adding PRP to low-energy CO2 laser (monthly for 3 sessions) gave lower infraorbital hollowing scores than laser alone through 6 months (Qi et al., 2025). That shows PRP as an add-on, not PRP on its own. The PRF gel article reports "progressive volume improvement with repeated treatments" with no numbers. It suggests the gel suits people with prior hyaluronic acid (HA) filler complications or compromised lymphatic drainage, which is expert opinion from authors with a gel-kit industry tie (Rahbari et al., 2026). For other collagen-stimulating injectables, see Sculptra vs Radiesse, and for filler after weight loss, see fillers after GLP-1 weight loss. Evidence: Limited.
What do realistic PRP vs PRF under eyes before-and-after results look like?
Expect study timelines measured in months, not days. Most trials assessed results at about 3 months, and PRF gains often faded by 6.
What studies measured, step by step
- Day 0–1Swelling
Injection-site swelling lasted up to 1 day in a 16-person PRFM study (Mahmoodabadi 2023).
- Weeks 2–8Repeat sessions
Studies spaced sessions a mean of 23 days apart, range 14–56 days (Evans 2021).
- About 3 monthsTypical assessment
Average follow-up was 3 months across 19 PRP studies (Evans 2021); the PRFM study assessed at 12 weeks.
- 6 monthsDurability check
PRF gains often diminished; PRP pigmentation results held (Sollitto 2025). Blinded dark-circle ratings reached 52.2% moderate-to-good at 6 months in one study (Banihashemi 2021).
- Beyond 6 monthsNo data
None of our sources report longer follow-up. Maintenance schedules are clinic convention.
Before-and-after photos can't show you this. Evans and colleagues called for long-term follow-up and studies free of conflicts of interest or industry sponsors (Evans et al., 2021). Across facial PRP, 11 of 12 studies showed improvement, but many outcomes were subjective (Gentile & Garcovich, 2023). Evidence: Limited.
PRP vs PRF under eyes: how many sessions do studies use?
Most periorbital studies used about 3 sessions spaced roughly 3 weeks apart. The range was wide, and no schedule has been tested against another.
Across 19 PRP studies, patients had a mean of 3 treatments (range 1–8) at a mean interval of 23 days (range 14–56) (Evans et al., 2021). Individual protocols varied:
| Study | Sessions | Spacing |
|---|---|---|
| Mehryan 2014 | 1 | Single session |
| Banihashemi 2021 | 2 | 3 months apart |
| Neinaa 2020 | 3 | 2 weeks apart |
| Qi 2025 | 3 (with laser) | Monthly |
Any schedule you're offered outside these protocols, such as a yearly top-up, is clinic convention. Evidence: Limited.
How safe are PRP and PRF under the eyes?
Studies report mild, short-lived side effects. They're too small to rule out rare problems.
The 2025 PRP vs PRF review found only mild, transient adverse effects (Sollitto et al., 2025). A review of facial PRP listed bruising and edema (swelling) from injections, and occasionally papules, scaling and dryness (Rodríguez-Castro & Cortés-Rodríguez, 2025). No serious adverse events appeared in any of the 20 studies in a whole-face PRP/PRF review (Qin et al., 2025).
The catch is that most reviews didn't plan to look for harms. Only 2 of 13 facial-PRP systematic reviews (15%) set adverse events as a predefined outcome (Cruciani et al., 2024). Before treatment, tell your injector about every medication and supplement you take. Any change to a prescription is a decision for your prescriber, not the clinic. Evidence: Limited.
Who is a good candidate for PRP vs PRF under eyes?
The cause of your under-eye concern decides it. Get it diagnosed by a dermatologist or qualified injector before you choose a treatment.
A recurring question online is a simple yes or no: is PRF under the eyes worth it? The honest answer depends on anatomy. The 2026 review stresses "anatomy-driven" selection based on fat pad integrity, skin quality and eyelid support (Beer et al., 2026).
| Main cause | What reviews point to | Where PRP/PRF fit |
|---|---|---|
| Pigment (brown color) | Peels and topicals for superficial dyschromia; lasers for melanin (Beer 2026) | PRP has limited evidence (Sollitto 2025) |
| Crepey texture, fine lines | Microneedling and polynucleotides (Beer 2026) | PRF has limited evidence that may fade by 6 months |
| Hollow (volume loss) | Filler or fat (Michelle 2021); see under-eye hollows | Not shown to replace filler |
| Puffy, herniated fat | Surgery (Beer 2026) | Not a fit |
| Excess skin laxity | Blepharoplasty (Michelle 2021) | Add-on data only (Qi 2025) |
If texture is your main concern, you may also want to read whether tretinoin helps with wrinkles and our concern-by-concern guide to peptides. Neither page claims eye-area results. For the regenerative-injection angle, see PDRN injections vs serums, and for volume loss after GLP-1 weight loss, see how to fix Ozempic face. If you're combining PRP with needling elsewhere on the face (a vampire facial), our skincare after microneedling guide covers aftercare. None of our sources tests that combination under the eyes. Evidence: Limited.
| Sollitto 2025 (SR) | 14 studies | Up to ~6 months | Varied | PRF texture, PRP pigment; no superiority |
| Evans 2021 (SR+MA) | 19 studies, 455 patients | Mean 3 months (1–6) | Mean 3 sessions, 23 days apart | Higher satisfaction vs controls (p = 0.001, I² = 64%) |
| Mehryan 2014 | 10 | 3 months | 1 session, 1.5 mL per side | Color homogeneity improved; melanin unchanged |
| Banihashemi 2021 | 30 women | 6 months | 2 sessions, 3 months apart | Blinded dark-circle rating 34.8% → 52.2% |
| Neinaa 2020 | 68 women | 3 months | 3 sessions, 2 weeks apart | PPP gel beat PRP |
| Kadry 2023 (RCT) | 30 | Not reported in abstract | Not reported in abstract | 53.3% PRP non-responders vs 6.7% fat + nanofat |
| Qi 2025 (RCT) | 80 | 6 months | Monthly × 3 with CO2 laser | Laser + PRP beat laser alone, incl. hollowing |
| Mahmoodabadi 2023 | 16 (per full text) | 12 weeks | PRFM, 700 rpm for 5 min | 'Noticeable improvement', no numbers |
Sollitto 2025 (SR)
Result: PRF texture, PRP pigment; no superiority
PRF gains often diminished by 6 months. Authors declare no conflicts.
Evans 2021 (SR+MA)
Result: Higher satisfaction vs controls (p = 0.001, I² = 64%)
Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs. Funding not reported in the abstract.
Mehryan 2014
Result: Color homogeneity improved; melanin unchanged
Uncontrolled. Funding not stated.
Banihashemi 2021
Result: Blinded dark-circle rating 34.8% → 52.2%
Uncontrolled, full-face PRP. No commercial conflicts declared.
Neinaa 2020
Result: PPP gel beat PRP
Split-face comparison; randomization not confirmed.
Kadry 2023 (RCT)
Result: 53.3% PRP non-responders vs 6.7% fat + nanofat
Single-blind. Funding not stated.
Qi 2025 (RCT)
Result: Laser + PRP beat laser alone, incl. hollowing
Tests PRP as an add-on only.
Mahmoodabadi 2023
Result: 'Noticeable improvement', no numbers
Uncontrolled. No competing interests.
Small, mostly uncontrolled studies. No head-to-head PRP vs PRF trial appears in our sources.
Where the evidence stops
- Head-to-head data: No PRP vs PRF under-eye trial is in our sources. The 2 reviews that address superiority disagree, and one has a PRF-industry tie.
- Durability: No data beyond 6 months, and PRF gains often faded by then.
- PRF gel: No published outcome numbers, and the main article has a gel-kit industry tie.
- Quality: Confidence in 12 of 13 facial-PRP systematic reviews was low or critically low, and the evidence was "insufficient to suggest firm conclusions" (Cruciani et al., 2024).
- Protocols: Spin speeds, volumes and session schedules vary, and none has been compared directly.
- Rare harms: The studies are too small to detect them, and most reviews didn't plan to look.
FAQ
Is PRF better than PRP for under eyes?
Not proven. A 2025 systematic review of 14 studies linked PRF to texture and fine-line gains and PRP to pigmentation gains, and concluded that the evidence does not support either one being superior. A separate narrative review, co-written by the founder of a PRF company, says the few head-to-head studies all favored PRF.
Does PRP get rid of dark circles?
Current studies don't show that. In a 10-person study, 1 PRP session made under-eye color more even at 3 months without changing melanin content. A 2026 review of 26 studies called PRP and PRF only moderately effective for under-eye pigmentation.
How many PRP or PRF sessions do you need?
Across 19 periorbital PRP studies, people had a mean of 3 sessions (range 1 to 8), spaced a mean of 23 days apart (range 14 to 56 days). Any schedule outside those study protocols, including yearly maintenance, is clinic convention rather than a tested plan.
When will I see results, and how long do they last?
Most studies assessed results at about 3 months. A 2025 review found that PRF improvements often faded by 6 months, while PRP pigmentation results held over similar intervals. Our sources have no data beyond 6 months.
Can PRF gel replace under-eye filler?
Not based on published numbers. A 2026 expert article describes a PRF gel made with denatured albumin as a natural alternative to hyaluronic acid filler but gives no outcome figures, and one author is medical director of a company that makes PRF gel kits. A 2026 review of 50 studies still treats filler as the foundation for volume loss.
What are the side effects of PRP or PRF under the eyes?
Studies report mild, short-lived effects such as bruising and swelling, plus occasional papules, scaling or dryness. In one 16-person PRF matrix study, swelling lasted up to a day. The studies are small, so they can't rule out rare complications.
What is PRFM?
PRFM stands for platelet-rich fibrin matrix. In one small study, blood was spun at 700 rpm for 5 minutes and the PRFM was injected beneath the skin around the eyes. Preparation methods vary widely between studies.
How much does PRP or PRF under the eyes cost?
We don't list prices. None of the studies we reviewed report costs, and prices vary by clinic, so ask for a written quote that states how many sessions are planned.
References
- Sollitto CF, et al. A Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Periorbital Rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025. Systematic review, 14 studies; authors declare no conflicts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41190633/
- Tai K, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Periorbital Esthetics: Systematic Review and Clinical Applications. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2026. Systematic review, 26 studies; nothing to disclose. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42392651/
- Evans AG, et al. Rejuvenating the periorbital area using platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021. Systematic review and meta-analysis, 19 studies, 455 patients; funding not reported in the abstract. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433716/
- Cruciani M, et al. Platelet rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: an overview of systematic reviews. Blood Transfus. 2024. Umbrella review, 13 systematic reviews; authors declare no conflicts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38557322/
- Davies C, Miron RJ. Autolougous platelet concentrates in esthetic medicine. Periodontol 2000. 2025. Narrative review with systematic RCT search, 96 articles; co-author is founder of BioPRF. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39086171/
- Shah S, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Facial Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Facial Plast Surg. 2026. Narrative review; no conflicts declared. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42331032/
- Qin N, et al. Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Facial Rejuvenation. Ann Plast Surg. 2025. Systematic review, 20 studies, 514 patients, whole face; conflicts and funding: none declared. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40167104/
- Mehryan P, et al. Assessment of efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on infraorbital dark circles and crow's feet wrinkles. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014. Uncontrolled trial, n=10, single session, 3 months; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24641609/
- Banihashemi M, et al. Platelet-rich Plasma use for facial rejuvenation: a clinical trial and review of current literature. Acta Biomed. 2021. Uncontrolled trial, n=30 women, 2 sessions, 6 months; non-US government support; no commercial conflicts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33988167/
- Neinaa YME, et al. Platelet-poor plasma gel vs platelet-rich plasma for infraorbital rejuvenation: A clinical and dermoscopic comparative study. Dermatol Ther. 2020. Split-face comparison, n=68 women, 3 sessions, 3 months; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32862476/
- Kadry A, et al. Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Autologous Fat Transfer With Nanofat in the Treatment of Infraorbital Dark Circles: A Single-Blinded Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial. Dermatol Surg. 2023. Single-blind RCT, n=30; follow-up and funding not reported in the abstract. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36735798/
- Qi Y, et al. Low Energy Ultrapulse CO(2) Fractional Laser Combined with Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma in Periorbital Rejuvenation Treatment. J Invest Surg. 2025. RCT, n=80, 3 monthly sessions, 6 months; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40254943/
- Mahmoodabadi RA, et al. Evaluation of the Effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Matrix in the Correction of Periorbital Wrinkles: An Experimental Clinical Trial. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023. Uncontrolled trial, 16 participants per full text, 12 weeks; no competing interests. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36892335/
- Rahbari S, et al. Periocular Rejuvenation with PRF Gel. Facial Plast Surg. 2026. Technique/expert article; an author is medical director of CosmoFrance, which makes PRF gel kits. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41991137/
- Shashank B, Bhushan M. Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF): The newest biomaterial and its use in various dermatological conditions in our practice: A case series. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021. Case series, no outcome data in abstract; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32996229/
- Beer J, et al. What's New With Under Eye Treatment: A Multispecialty Systematic Review of Recent Under Eye Treatments. Dermatol Surg. 2026. Systematic review, 50 studies; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41615388/
- Michelle L, et al. Treatments of Periorbital Hyperpigmentation: A Systematic Review. Dermatol Surg. 2021. Systematic review, 39 studies; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32740208/
- Kassir M, et al. Update in minimally invasive periorbital rejuvenation with a focus on platelet-rich plasma: A narrative review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020. Narrative review; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32181588/
- Nanda S, et al. Platelet-Rich Plasma in Aesthetics. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2021. Task-force recommendations; no conflicts of interest. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34976880/
- Rodríguez-Castro MJ, Cortés-Rodríguez AE. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in facial rejuvenation: A systematic review. Enferm Clin (Engl Ed). 2025. Systematic review, 9 clinical trials and 2 observational studies; no conflicts declared. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40118148/
- Gentile P, Garcovich S. Systematic Review: Platelet-Rich Plasma Use in Facial Rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023. Systematic review, 12 studies; funding not stated. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36728559/
Disclosure: This article is for general information only. It is not medical advice. Peptide Skincare has no affiliate links in this article and received no payment from any manufacturer mentioned. PRP and PRF are medical procedures; ask a qualified, licensed injector or dermatologist whether they suit you.