When researching hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers, prospective patients and aesthetic injectors frequently ask a simple question: "How long does RHA last?"
Med spa consultations and consumer health portals routinely give a broad, uniform answer—claiming that "RHA fillers last 12 to 15 months because they move naturally with your facial expressions, slowing breakdown." Manufacturer marketing on rhacollection.com echoes this envelope, stating that results last "up to 15 months in dynamic wrinkles and folds" and "up to a year in cheeks, lips, and lipstick lines."
The clinical and regulatory reality established by FDA Premarket Approval (PMA) records is that there is no single "RHA duration." In the United States, every commercially available gel in the Teoxane RHA Collection sits under a single PMA number: P170002 (applicant Teoxane S.A., Product Code LMH), originally approved on October 19, 2017. Clinical persistence is product- and anatomical-area-specific, and manufacturer "up to" claims represent upper-bound responder ceilings following initial treatment plus an optional touch-up (optimal correction), not medians for a single, unretreated syringe.
A syringe of RHA 2 in moderate nasolabial folds behaves completely differently from RHA 3 in the mobile vermillion lip, RHA Redensity in delicate superficial perioral lines, RHA Dynamic Volume placed supraperiosteally in the midface, or RHA Redensity Eye placed in the infraorbital hollows. For the PMA architecture and MAUDE record, see Teoxane RHA filler technology. For broader portfolio comparisons against Allergan and Galderma, see RHA vs. Juvéderm, how long Juvéderm lasts, how long Restylane lasts, and cross-brand lip filler duration.
This guide analyzes official FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) documents to map the exact clinical persistence, trial endpoints, responder rates, and limitations of each formulation in the RHA Collection.
[RHA Collection Regulatory & Persistence Map]
Product / Indication PMA & Decision Date Trial Efficacy Follow-Up & Responders Manufacturer Ceiling
───────────────────────── ─────────────────── ────────────────────────────────────────── ────────────────────
RHA 2 (NLF, mid-to-deep) P170002 ORIG (2017) W24 WSRS: 83.6% (56/67) vs control 82.1% Up to 15 months*
W64 GAI: 83.6% (PP extension cohort)
RHA 3 (NLF, mid-to-deep) P170002 ORIG (2017) W24 WSRS: 91.9% (57/62) vs control 88.7% Up to 15 months*
W64 GAI: 82.3% (PP extension cohort)
RHA 4 (NLF, deep/subQ) P170002 ORIG (2017) W24 WSRS: 97.7% (86/88) vs control 89.6% Up to 15 months*
W64 GAI: 87.2% (PP extension cohort)
RHA Redensity (Perioral) P170002/S012 (2021) W8 PR-SRS: 80.7% (121/150) vs control 7.8% Up to 1 year
W52 PR-SRS: 66.5% (125/188 pooled)
RHA 3 (Lip Augmentation) P170002/S030 (2023) W12 TLFS: 78.1% (107/137) vs control 65.9% Up to 1 year
W52 BLE GAI: 73.4% (58/79 evaluable)
RHA 4 / Dynamic Volume P170002/S048 (2025) W8 TMVDS: 87.0% (114/131) vs Voluma 90.5% Up to 1 year
(Cheek / Midface) Decision: 2025-09-18 W52 GAIS: 75.8% (97/128); ~65% volume
RHA Redensity Eye P170002/S050 (2026) W12 TIOHS: 79.0% vs control 9.8% 52-week PMA table
(Infraorbital Hollows) Decision: 2026-05-12 W52 TIOHS: 60.5% (124/205 pooled)
*The 15-month NLF marketing ceiling reflects 64-week subjective aesthetic improvement among consenting completers after 52-week retreatment exits, not the 24-week objective primary WSRS endpoint.
Direct Answer: Does RHA Really Last 15 Months?
When evaluating RHA longevity claims, clinicians and patients must distinguish FDA trial endpoints from marketing summaries:
- What "Up to 15 Months" actually means: The 15-month claim applies specifically to RHA 2, RHA 3, and RHA 4 injected into dynamic nasolabial folds (NLFs). It is derived from a 64-week (approximately 14.7-month) study extension in the original 2017 PMA trial (P170002). At 64 weeks, 82.3% to 87.2% of evaluated subjects reported sustained aesthetic improvement on the Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) scale.
- The 15-month number is NOT a median or a WSRS score: The primary regulatory endpoint in that trial was Week 24 (6 months) on the validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS). The 64-week extension was offered after trial initiation; subjects eligible for retreatment at Week 52 exited the cohort before Week 64. The 15-month claim reflects remaining, unretreated completers assessing overall satisfaction—not an intention-to-treat median duration.
- Cheeks, Lips, and Lipstick Lines Last Up to 1 Year: For areas other than dynamic folds, official manufacturer labeling and FDA trial data establish a ceiling of up to 12 months:
- Cheeks (Midface): RHA Dynamic Volume and RHA 4 midface augmentation trials evaluated effectiveness through 52 weeks (P170002/S048).
- Lips: RHA 3 lip augmentation trials evaluated full correction through 52 weeks (P170002/S030).
- Lipstick Lines (Perioral Rhytids): RHA Redensity evaluated wrinkle reduction through 52 weeks (P170002/S012).
- The "Optimal Correction" Prerequisite: All published duration metrics in FDA SSEDs reflect protocols where subjects received initial baseline injection plus an optional touch-up (except the Redensity Eye primary window). In the cheek trial, 63.2% (96/152) received a touch-up; in the lip trial, 58% (89/153) of the safety population received a touch-up. A single, under-dosed syringe split across multiple facial zones will not match published persistence curves.
- Dynamic Volume is NOT Voluma's 24-Month Table: Juvéderm Voluma XC holds an FDA-documented 24-month persistence table in the midface (67.1% responders at Month 24; P110033). In contrast, RHA Dynamic Volume has no 24-month FDA data; its SSED stops at Week 52.
- Only RHA 3 is On-Label for Lips: Med spa marketing frequently lumps "RHA 2, 3, and 4" together for lip augmentation. In the United States, only RHA 3 (and later RHA 3 Mepi labeling) is FDA-approved for lip fullness and oral commissures. RHA 2 remains an NLF gel. RHA 4 is labeled for NLFs and, under S048, for cheeks. Neither RHA 2 nor RHA 4 is on-label for lips.
- Skip an unspecific quote: If a provider quotes "RHA filler" without specifying the exact SKU (RHA 2, 3, 4, Redensity, or Dynamic Volume) and anatomical depth, the duration question cannot be answered.
The Regulatory Architecture: One PMA (P170002) and Preserved Network Technology
In the FDA CDRH Premarket Approval database (Class III dermal implants, Product Code LMH), the entire US RHA Collection is registered under PMA P170002, held by applicant Teoxane S.A. (Geneva, Switzerland).
A review of the FDA PMA database (as of the August 2026 data snapshot) reveals 53 total listing rows for P170002. Unlike Allergan (which operates two distinct PMA lineages: Hylacross P050047 and Vycross P110033) or Galderma (which operates three: P020023, NASHA P040024, and XpresHAn P140029), Teoxane built its entire US presence on sequential panel-track and labeling supplements to P170002.
[Teoxane RHA PMA Supplement Evolution]
Supplement FDA Decision Date Indication / Modification
──────────────── ───────────────── ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
P170002 (ORIG) 2017-10-19 RHA 2, RHA 3, RHA 4 in moderate-to-severe NLFs
P170002/S012 2021-12-22 RHA Redensity in superficial perioral rhytids
P170002/S026 2023-10-13 RHA Mepi line (mepivacaine twins; 4-week pain SSED)
P170002/S030 2023-10-27 RHA 3 in lip augmentation (vermillion body & border)
P170002/S048 2025-09-18 RHA 4 & Dynamic Volume in midface / cheek augmentation
P170002/S050 2026-05-12 RHA Redensity Eye in infraorbital hollows
P170002/S041/S051+ 2026 Process, post-approval study (PAS), & labeling updates
Preserved Network Technology (PNT)
Traditional hyaluronic acid manufacturing uses harsh chemical cross-linking and elevated thermal conditions to bond HA chains with 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE). While this creates a resilient gel, it degrades long native polymer chains, requiring higher concentrations of synthetic cross-linking to resist enzymatic breakdown by endogenous hyaluronidases.
Teoxane’s Preserved Network Technology (PNT) employs a gentler, low-temperature manufacturing process that preserves long chains of native, high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid:
- Lower chemical modification: Manufacturer materials describe a lower BDDE modification rate than conventional high-density HA gels. Exact modification-degree ranges are not the duration tables in the SSEDs.
- Dynamic rheology: By preserving native intermolecular forces, PNT is designed to yield gels with high dynamic stretch (extensibility under lateral shear) alongside enough elastic modulus (G-prime) to hold shape at rest.
- Clinical consequence: When muscles contract during smiling, talking, and chewing, RHA is intended to stretch and rebound rather than shear into rigid subcutaneous lumps. Dynamic movement also exposes the gel to mechanical stress, which is why clinical longevity varies by facial zone. The PMA architecture, rheology claims, and MAUDE record live on the Teoxane RHA profile; this page keeps the SSED duration tables.
The Mepivacaine Line (S026)
On October 13, 2023, the FDA approved P170002/S026, adding a mepivacaine-containing formulation line (RHA 2 Mepi, RHA 3 Mepi, and RHA 4 Mepi). Mepivacaine is an amide local anesthetic that causes less immediate vasodilation than lidocaine, reducing immediate post-injection erythema and edema.
Critically, the S026 SSED was a 4-week pain non-inferiority study, not a clinical longevity trial. The duration of mepivacaine formulations mirrors their lidocaine-containing twins. Notably, RHA Dynamic Volume was originally designated RHA 4 Mepi in earlier regulatory filings before receiving its branded commercial identity.
Is There One RHA Duration, or Does Each P170002 Product and Area Have Its Own Table?
There is no uniform duration figure for RHA. Longevity is governed by three variables: gel rheology (cross-linking and concentration), injection plane (superficial dermis vs. supraperiosteal bone), and local mechanical movement (static folds vs. active perioral muscles).
Below is the detailed product-by-product breakdown from official FDA SSED trial tables.
1. RHA 2, RHA 3, and RHA 4 in Nasolabial Folds (P170002 ORIG, October 19, 2017)
- Indication: RHA 2 and RHA 3: mid-to-deep dermis; RHA 4: deep dermis to superficial subcutaneous tissue. All three: moderate-to-severe dynamic facial wrinkles and folds, such as nasolabial folds, in adults aged 22 and older.
- Trial Architecture: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial (NCT02195427) comparing each RHA gel against an unnamed legally marketed US hyaluronic acid dermal filler control.
- Primary Effectiveness Endpoint (Week 24): The primary endpoint was non-inferiority on the validated 5-point Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) assessed by a Blinded Live Evaluator (BLE) at Week 24 (6 months).
- Per-Protocol Week-24 Responder Rates (WSRS ≥ 1-Grade Improvement):
- RHA 2: 83.6% (56/67) vs. control 82.1% (55/67).
- RHA 3: 91.9% (57/62) vs. control 88.7% (55/62).
- RHA 4: 97.7% (86/88) vs. control 89.6% (79/88).
- Touch-up: After 14 days, additional NLF correction was allowed if the treating investigator judged it necessary. The SSED caps volume at 3.0 mL per NLF per injection session.
[NLF WSRS Responders at Week 24]
Product RHA Responder Rate (n/N) Control Responder Rate (n/N)
───────────── ──────────────────────── ────────────────────────────
RHA 2 83.6% (56/67) 82.1% (55/67)
RHA 3 91.9% (57/62) 88.7% (55/62)
RHA 4 97.7% (86/88) 89.6% (79/88)
Is Manufacturer Up to 15 Months a Median, or a 24-Week NLF WSRS Primary with 64-Week GAI After 52-Week Retreatment Exits?
Med spa advertising universally quotes "lasts up to 15 months." However, examining the SSED reveals how that number originated:
- Protocol Extension: Table 5 (footnote c) notes that the original study protocol was amended after trial initiation to extend patient follow-up from 52 weeks to 64 weeks (approximately 14.7 months).
- Patient Attrition and Retreatment: Subjects who did not consent to the protocol extension, or who qualified for retreatment at Week 52, were exited from the study prior to Week 64. Intention-to-treat (ITT) subjects still evaluable at Week 64 were 52/73 (71.2%) for RHA 2, 54/74 (73.0%) for RHA 3, and 90/118 (76.3%) for RHA 4.
- Endpoint Shift: At Week 64, the FDA SSED does not report a blinded WSRS responder table. Instead, it reports Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI). Among the remaining evaluable subjects at 64 weeks, the proportion rating their folds as improved or much improved was:
- RHA 2: 83.6%
- RHA 3: 82.3%
- RHA 4: 87.2%
Clinical Takeaway: The "15-month" claim is an upper-bound marketing envelope. It demonstrates that patients who achieved optimal correction and did not require retreatment at Month 12 remained satisfied at Month 15. It is not an objective median duration where half the filler remains intact. For realistic planning in moderate-to-severe folds, patients should anticipate maintenance between 9 and 12 months.
2. RHA Redensity in Perioral Rhytids / "Lipstick Lines" (P170002/S012, December 22, 2021)
- Indication: Injection into the superficial to mid-dermis for the correction of moderate-to-severe perioral rhytids (vertical lip lines) in adults aged 22 and older.
- Trial Architecture: Multicenter, randomized, no-treatment controlled study (NCT03092219) enrolling 202 subjects (150 treatment, 52 delayed-treatment control).
- Primary Effectiveness Endpoint (Week 8): Blinded Live Evaluator assessment of ≥ 1-grade improvement on the 5-point Perioral Rhytid Severity Scale (PR-SRS).
- Treatment Group at Week 8: 80.7% (121/150) responders vs. Control 7.8% (4/51).
- Long-Term Durability (Pooled Cohort Table 12):
- Week 8: 80.4% (156/194)
- Week 24 (6 Months): 72.9% (137/188)
- Week 52 (12 Months): 66.5% (125/188)
[RHA Redensity PR-SRS Durability Curve]
Follow-Up Visit Evaluable Patients (N) PR-SRS Responders (n) Responder Rate (%)
──────────────── ────────────────────── ───────────────────── ──────────────────
Week 8 194 156 80.4%
Week 24 188 137 72.9%
Week 52 188 125 66.5%
The Week-52 Retreatment Context
The SSED notes that optional retreatment was offered for loss of correction between Weeks 12 and 36, and retreatment was formally offered to all subjects attending the Week 52 visit.
Consequently, 142 subjects (75.5% of the ITT cohort) received repeat treatment at Week 52.
It is clinically vital to understand why 66.5% responding and 75.5% retreated coexist: retreatment at Week 52 was a study protocol benefit offered to all completing subjects, not merely to clinical failures. Nevertheless, two-thirds of patients retained objective wrinkle reduction at one full year. RHA Redensity is a true 9-to-12-month superficial perioral filler. For combination treatment strategies, see our guide on smoker's lines treatments.
3. RHA 3 in Lip Augmentation (P170002/S030, October 27, 2023)
- Indication: Submucosal injection into the vermillion body, vermillion border, and oral commissures for lip augmentation in adults aged 22 and older.
- Trial Architecture: Randomized, evaluator-blinded, active-controlled multicenter study. The mITT efficacy set was 137 RHA 3 vs. 44 active control, identified in clinical trial registry and SSED CTR text as Restylane-L. The safety population was larger (153 RHA 3 vs. 49 control).
- Primary Effectiveness Endpoint (Week 12): Blinded Live Evaluator assessment of ≥ 1-grade improvement on the 5-point Total Lip Fullness Scale (TLFS) at Week 12.
- RHA 3: 78.1% (107/137)
- Control (Restylane-L): 65.9% (29/44)
- The Co-Primary Endpoint Threshold Miss: The pivotal protocol specified that the active control group was expected to achieve a responder rate of at least 70%. Because the control group reached only 65.9%, the formal statistical co-primary criterion was not met.
- Post-Hoc Baseline Severity Stratification: To evaluate clinical effectiveness, the FDA analyzed outcomes stratified by baseline lip fullness:
- Mild to Moderate Baseline (Grades 1–2): RHA 3 responder rate was 94.1% (64/68) vs. control 88.9% (24/27).
- Severe Thinness Baseline (Grade 3): RHA 3 responder rate was 62.3% (43/69) vs. control 29.4% (5/17).
- Durability Through Week 52: At Week 52, Blinded Live Evaluator GAI showed that 73.4% (58/79 evaluable subjects) remained improved or much improved.
Is RHA 2, 3, and 4 All On-Label for Lips, or Only RHA 3?
A frequent error in clinic marketing—and in preliminary industry summaries—is stating that "the RHA Collection is approved for lips."
Under US labeling, only RHA 3 (and later RHA 3 Mepi labeling) is FDA-approved for lip augmentation. S030 (27 October 2023) added the lip indication for RHA 3; S026 (13 October 2023) is the mepivacaine twin identity SSED, a 4-week NLF pain study, not a second lip-duration table. Injecting RHA 2 or RHA 4 into the lips is off-label.
RHA 3 is formulated for dynamic perioral tissue. In contrast to Restylane Kysse (60% MLFS fullness at Week 48; P140029/S021) or Juvéderm Volbella XC (61.8% at Month 12; P110033/S018), the RHA 3 lip SSED follows patients through 52 weeks. Week-52 BLE GAI of 58/79 (73.4%) is among remaining evaluable subjects, not a TLFS n/N and not a median duration.
4. RHA Dynamic Volume & RHA 4 in Cheek Augmentation (P170002/S048, September 18, 2025)
- Indication: Subcutaneous and/or supraperiosteal injection for cheek augmentation to correct age-related midface contour deficiencies in adults aged 22 and older.
- Trial Architecture: Multicenter, randomized, evaluator-blinded head-to-head clinical trial (NCT05133739) comparing RHA against Juvéderm Voluma XC (152 RHA subjects vs. 49 Voluma subjects).
- The Formulation Used: The clinical trial injected RHA 4 (lidocaine formulation). In the approved labeling, the FDA approved both RHA 4 and RHA Dynamic Volume (formerly RHA 4 Mepi, the mepivacaine twin approved under S026).
[Midface Augmentation Head-to-Head Trial]
Metric / Endpoint RHA 4 / Dynamic Volume Juvéderm Voluma XC
───────────────────────────── ────────────────────── ──────────────────
Trial Enrollment 152 subjects 49 subjects
Touch-Up Rate at Week 4 63.2% (96/152) 83.7% (41/49)
Mean Volume to Optimal Result 3.70 mL 3.51 mL
Week 8 TMVDS Responders (PP) 87.0% (114/131) 90.5% (38/42)
Week 52 BLE GAIS Responders 75.8% (97/128) 68.2% (30/44)
Printed W52 TMVDS n/N Not in S048 P110033 has a 24-month table
Is RHA Dynamic Volume FDA-Approved in January 2026, or Is S048 Dated 18 September 2025?
Many aesthetic websites, injector blogs, and early portfolio overviews date the FDA approval of RHA Dynamic Volume to January 13, 2026.
That date was the commercial press announcement issued jointly by Revance Therapeutics and Teoxane S.A. Official FDA PMA records confirm that P170002/S048 was formally approved on September 18, 2025. The January 2026 date is the announcement, not the FDA decision date.
Primary Efficacy: Table 18 vs. Narrative Summaries
At the primary endpoint of Week 8, per-protocol Blinded Live Evaluator assessment on the Teoxane Midface Volume Deficit Scale (TMVDS ≥ 1-grade improvement) showed:
- RHA 4 / Dynamic Volume: 87.0% (114/131)
- Juvéderm Voluma XC: 90.5% (38/42)
Note on conflicting text: SSED narrative conclusion sections occasionally cite a 92.0% responder figure for RHA at Week 8. However, Table 18 (the audited per-protocol efficacy table) records exactly 87.0% (114/131). In regulatory analysis, audited data tables supersede secondary text summaries.
The "Fewer Touch-Ups" Data
Commercial press releases highlighted that RHA required "fewer touch-ups" than Voluma. SSED Table 7 provides the empirical basis for this claim:
- 63.2% (96/152) of RHA patients required a touch-up session at Week 4.
- 83.7% (41/49) of Voluma XC patients required a touch-up session at Week 4.
While RHA patients had a lower touch-up incidence, the total mean volume required to achieve optimal cosmetic correction was slightly higher for RHA (3.70 mL across both cheeks) than for Voluma (3.51 mL).
Does Labeled Cheek Dynamic Volume Last as Long as Voluma's 24-Month Table, or 52 Weeks with No Printed TMVDS n/N at Week 52?
No. This is the single most important clinical distinction for midface patients:
- No Week-52 TMVDS Table: Unlike the original Juvéderm Voluma trial (which published exact MFVDS responder numbers at Months 6, 12, 18, and 24), the RHA S048 SSED prints no Week-52 TMVDS responder n/N table.
- Text Estimations: SSED narrative text states that "approximately 65% of subjects still had visible volume at 1 year and nearly 80% at 6 months."
- Week-52 GAIS: The SSED does document Week-52 Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores, showing 75.8% (97/128) of RHA patients rated as improved or much improved, compared to 68.2% (30/44) for Voluma.
- Natural Movement Score: Press releases reported that ">94% of subjects looked natural up to 1 year." The SSED Teoxane Natural Movement Score Questionnaire (TMNSQ) recorded naturalness ratings of >89% at Week 8 and 77% at Month 12.
Clinical Takeaway: RHA Dynamic Volume is a highly effective, natural-moving midface volumizer with a proven 12-month clinical duration. However, it does not have the 24-month FDA persistence data held by Juvéderm Voluma XC. For patients seeking deep, immobile structural projection that lasts two full years, Voluma retains an empirical longevity advantage; for patients prioritizing dynamic animation when smiling, Dynamic Volume offers superior tissue compliance. For direct comparisons, see our guide on Restylane Lyft vs. Voluma.
5. RHA Redensity Eye in Infraorbital Hollows (P170002/S050, May 12, 2026)
On May 12, 2026, the FDA approved P170002/S050, expanding the portfolio to include RHA Redensity Eye for infraorbital hollows (tear troughs) in adults aged 22 and older.
- Product Formulation: Redensity Eye is a 15 mg/g hyaluronic acid gel formulated for the infraorbital hollows. Perioral RHA Redensity (P170002/S012) is also 15 mg/g — a mix of crosslinked and non-crosslinked HA indicated for lipstick lines, not a 23 mg/g NLF gel. RHA 2, RHA 3, and RHA 4 are the 23 mg/g gels. The Eye SKU is a different indication, injection plane (sub-dermis / supraperiosteum), and trade name, not a concentration step-down from 23 mg/mL.
- Primary Effectiveness (Week 12): Evaluated on the Teoxane Infraorbital Hollows Scale (TIOHS), multiple imputation responder rates were 79.0% in the treatment group vs. 9.8% in untreated controls.
- Week-52 Durability: In the pooled cohort, observed BLE TIOHS responder rates were 78.3% (173/221) at Week 12 and maintained at 60.5% (124/205) at Week 52 (one full year).
- Protocol Rigor: Unlike other indication studies, the primary evaluation window for Redensity Eye did not permit touch-up injections.
For an exhaustive clinical breakdown of the infraorbital trial, swelling curves, and safety comparisons against Restylane Eyelight and Juvéderm Volbella, see our dedicated analysis of RHA Redensity Eye FDA approval.
What is Teosyal Redensity 1, and Why Is It Not an FDA-Approved US Filler?
A common source of confusion on social media and patient forums stems from international nomenclature:
- In Europe and Canada: Teoxane markets Teosyal PureSense Redensity [I] as a non-crosslinked (or minimally crosslinked) skin booster containing free hyaluronic acid, amino acids, antioxidants, and minerals. It is injected superficially across the full face, neck, and hands to improve skin radiance and hydration.
- In the United States: The FDA PMA database (P170002) contains zero trade-name listings for "Teosyal" or "Redensity 1." It is not FDA-approved in the US.
- US Redensity vs. European Redensity [I]: The product approved under P170002/S012 in the US is RHA Redensity, a 15 mg/g gel of both crosslinked and non-crosslinked HA indicated strictly for superficial perioral wrinkles ("lipstick lines"). It is not Teosyal Redensity 1, and it is not the 23 mg/g RHA 2/3/4 NLF gels. The only FDA-approved hyaluronic acid skin booster in the US is Allergan's Skinvive by Juvéderm (P110033/S059; microdroplet intradermal cheek smoothness).
Any clinic in the United States offering "Teosyal Redensity 1 skin boosters" is either administering an unapproved imported product or confusing nomenclature.
Direct Comparison: RHA vs. Juvéderm vs. Restylane
When deciding between major US hyaluronic acid filler families, longevity must be evaluated alongside rheological behavior:
[Major US HA Family Comparison]
Attribute Teoxane RHA Collection Allergan Juvéderm Family Galderma Restylane Family
──────────────────── ──────────────────────── ───────────────────────── ─────────────────────────
PMA Numbers 1 PMA (P170002) 2 PMAs (P050047, P110033) 3 PMAs (P020023, P040024, P140029)
Core Manufacturing Preserved Network (PNT) Hylacross & Vycross NASHA & XpresHAn (OBT)
Primary Clinical Fit Dynamic expression, Structural projection, Structural lift (NASHA),
tissue flexibility volumetric durability flexible contouring (OBT)
NLF Duration Up to 15 months (W64 GAI) Up to 18 months (Vollure) Up to 12–18 months
Cheek Duration Up to 12 months (Dynamic) Up to 24 months (Voluma) Up to 12–18 months (Contour/Lyft)
Lip Duration Up to 12 months (RHA 3) Up to 12 months (Volbella) Up to 12 months (Kysse)
Perioral Lines Up to 12 months (Redensity)Up to 12 months (Volbella) Up to 6 months (Silk)
Under-Eye Duration Up to 12 months (Eye) Up to 12 months (Volbella) Up to 12–18 months (Eyelight)
Reversibility Hyaluronidase soluble Hyaluronidase soluble Hyaluronidase soluble
Longevity vs. Tissue Integration: The Clinical Tradeoff
Why choose RHA if Juvéderm Voluma lasts up to 24 months in the cheeks or Vollure lasts up to 18 months in folds?
- Resistance to shearing: In high-movement areas (lips, commissures, smile lines), rigid high-G-prime gels can feel firm or become visible when animating. RHA is positioned for dynamic tissue planes.
- Low Water Uptake: Because PNT preserves native HA structure with low chemical cross-linking, RHA exhibits minimal hydrophilic post-injection swelling compared to older Hylacross formulations (Juvéderm Ultra Plus).
- Cost Context: RHA syringes typically range from $800 to $1,100 per syringe, comparable to Vycross and Restylane OBT products. For detailed syringe breakdown math, see our lip filler cost per syringe guide.
Safety, Complications, and Reversibility
Like all FDA-approved dermal fillers, the RHA Collection carries specific safety considerations:
- Hyaluronidase reversibility: RHA fillers are crosslinked hyaluronic acid and can be dissolved with hyaluronidase. This page does not publish an emergency-treatment protocol. For timing and limits, see dissolving filler with hyaluronidase.
- Vascular occlusion: Accidental intravascular injection is a rare but serious complication of any dermal filler, including skin necrosis or visual impairment. Name the risk with the injector before treatment. See filler vascular occlusion.
- Fitzpatrick Skin Types IV–VI: In the S048 midface safety population, 28.9% (58/201) of subjects were Fitzpatrick IV–VI, including 29.6% (45/152) in the RHA 4 arm. The SSED reports no observed ADE-rate difference across Fitzpatrick groups. Susceptibility to keloid or hypertrophic scarring was an exclusion criterion, not a trial outcome showing those events did not occur.
Who Should Skip an RHA Quote (Unnamed SKU, Teosyal Redensity 1, Voluma 24-Month Applied to RHA Cheeks, RHA 2 or 4 as Lip Filler, Pregnant/Breastfeeding)?
Patients should pause and reconsider if they encounter any of the following scenarios during a consultation:
- The Unnamed SKU Quote: If a med spa quotes "$850 for an RHA treatment" but will not specify whether you are receiving RHA 2, RHA 3, RHA 4, Redensity, or Dynamic Volume, decline the treatment. Each product is engineered for a different depth and indication; a clinic that treats RHA as a single commodity is not practicing precise facial anatomy.
- Expecting 24-Month Midface Duration: If an injector promises that RHA Dynamic Volume in your cheeks will last two years "just like Voluma," recognize that this is unsupported by regulatory data. Dynamic Volume has a proven 12-month duration curve.
- Off-label RHA 2 or RHA 4 for lips: If a provider suggests using RHA 2 or RHA 4 in the lip body, only RHA 3 is FDA-approved for lip augmentation. RHA 4's NLF and cheek labeling does not make it an on-label lip gel.
- Promises of Teosyal Redensity 1 Skin Boosters: If a US clinic markets Redensity 1 for full-face mesotherapy or skin hydration, understand that this product is not FDA-approved in the United States.
- Expecting 15 Months from Half a Syringe: The 15-month NLF data required full initial correction plus an optional touch-up. Splitting a single syringe across smile lines, lips, and cheeks will deplete significantly faster.
- Pregnancy or Breastfeeding: The safety of RHA fillers has not been established in pregnant or lactating women. Treatment should be deferred.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does RHA last compared to Juvéderm or Restylane?
In dynamic areas such as the nasolabial folds, lips, and perioral lines, RHA lasts 9 to 12 months (with select NLF completers showing satisfaction up to 15 months), which is directly comparable to Juvéderm Vollure (up to 18 months in folds) and Restylane Kysse/Defyne (up to 12 months). However, in deep structural midface volumization, Juvéderm Voluma XC has an FDA-supported 24-month table, whereas RHA Dynamic Volume is labeled for up to 12 months.
How long does RHA 3 last in the lips versus RHA 4 in folds versus Dynamic Volume in the cheeks?
In FDA trials:
- RHA 3 in lips (P170002/S030): mITT Week-12 BLE TLFS ≥1-grade 107/137 (78.1%); Week-52 BLE GAI 58/79 (73.4%) among remaining evaluable subjects, not a TLFS n/N.
- RHA 4 in nasolabial folds (P170002 ORIG): Week-24 PP WSRS 86/88 (97.7%); Week-64 subject GAI 87.2% among the remaining extension cohort.
- RHA 4 / Dynamic Volume in cheeks (P170002/S048): Week-8 PP TMVDS 114/131 (87.0%); Week-52 BLE GAIS 97/128 (75.8%). The SSED prints no Week-52 TMVDS n/N; conclusions say approximately 65% still had visible volume at 1 year.
Does RHA last 15 months?
The 15-month claim is a labeled upper-bound marketing envelope that applies strictly to dynamic facial folds (NLFs) treated with RHA 2, 3, or 4. It reflects a 64-week extension study where 82.3% to 87.2% of remaining, unretreated patients reported continued aesthetic improvement. It is not an objective median duration, nor does it apply to lips, cheeks, or lipstick lines, which last up to 1 year.
Is RHA Dynamic Volume the same as RHA 4, and when was the midface indication approved?
RHA Dynamic Volume is chemically identical to the mepivacaine-containing formulation formerly designated RHA 4 Mepi under P170002/S026. The pivotal midface clinical trial (NCT05133739) evaluated RHA 4 (lidocaine) against Juvéderm Voluma XC. The FDA formally approved both RHA 4 and RHA Dynamic Volume for midface cheek augmentation on September 18, 2025 (P170002/S048). The frequently cited date of January 13, 2026 was the commercial launch press release, not the FDA decision date.
Is RHA Redensity Eye the same as perioral Redensity, and how long does it last?
No. RHA Redensity (P170002/S012) is a 15 mg/g perioral gel (crosslinked and non-crosslinked HA) for superficial lip lines. RHA Redensity Eye (P170002/S050, approved May 12, 2026) is a separate 15 mg/g infraorbital SKU, not a 23 mg/g NLF gel and not EU Teosyal Redensity 1. In the S050 trial, multiple-imputation Week-12 TIOHS responders were 79.0% of 183 versus 9.8% of 65; pooled observed BLE TIOHS at Week 52 was 124/205 (60.5%).
Can RHA be dissolved if I do not like it?
Yes. Because RHA is crosslinked hyaluronic acid, it can be dissolved with injected hyaluronidase. This article does not publish emergency dosing. See dissolving filler with hyaluronidase.
Sources
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA 2, RHA 3, RHA 4 Dermal Fillers (PMA P170002). Approved October 19, 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA Redensity (PMA P170002/S012). Approved December 22, 2021. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002S012B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA 3 Dermal Filler for Lip Augmentation (PMA P170002/S030). Approved October 27, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002S030B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA 4 and RHA Dynamic Volume for Midface Augmentation (PMA P170002/S048). Approved September 18, 2025. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002S048B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA Redensity Eye for Infraorbital Hollows (PMA P170002/S050). Approved May 12, 2026. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002S050B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): RHA Mepi Dermal Fillers (PMA P170002/S026). Approved October 13, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf17/P170002S026B.pdf
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). CDRH Premarket Approval (PMA) Database: P170002/S048 Decision Record (RHA Dynamic Volume). September 18, 2025. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P170002S048
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). CDRH Premarket Approval (PMA) Database: P170002/S030 Decision Record (RHA 3 Lip Augmentation). October 27, 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P170002S030
- Teoxane S.A. / Revance Therapeutics. About Our Fillers: The Teoxane RHA® Collection. Retrieved September 3, 2026. https://www.rhacollection.com/about-fillers
- Revance Therapeutics and Teoxane S.A. Revance and Teoxane Announce FDA Approval of RHA Dynamic Volume for Midface Contour Deficiencies. PR Newswire. January 13, 2026. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/revance-and-teoxane-announce-the-fda-approval-of-rha-dynamic-volume-for-midface-contour-deficiencies-302658756.html
- ClinicalTrials.gov. A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Teosyal RHA 4 for Midface Volume Deficit (NCT05133739). U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05133739
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). CDRH Premarket Approval (PMA) Database: P170002 original record (RHA 2, RHA 3, RHA 4). October 19, 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P170002
