A Split-Face Pilot Study Evaluating Advanced Regenerative Serum vs. Three Comparator Treatment Products
Background:
Topical skincare regimens targeting visible signs of aging often incorporate multiple treatment products designed to address distinct biological pathways, including oxidative stress, hydration, and dermal support. Adherence to multi-step topical regimens can be variable in real-world use.
Objective:
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Advanced Regenerative Serum (ARS) compared to a three-product treatment regimen in a split-face design.
Methods:
In an 8-week, split-face pilot study (n=6), subjects applied ARS (single treatment product) to one side of the face and a combination of three comparator treatment products (vitamin C, hyaluronic acid, and peptide serum) to the opposite side. Cleanser and sunscreen were consistent across both sides; moisturizers differed between treatment arms. Assessments included blinded investigator grading using a Modified Griffith’s scale1, subject-rated efficacy assessments and product experience questionnaires, standardized photography, and bioinstrumentation (TEWL and hydration measurements).
Results:
Blinded investigator grading demonstrated greater improvement with ARS across multiple parameters, including fine lines/wrinkles, radiance/brightness, plumpness (volume), elasticity, skin roughness, sagging and overall skin quality/appearance. Subject self-assessment indicated improvements across all evaluated attributes, with a high proportion of subjects reporting equal or better results with ARS compared to comparator treatment products. Instrumental measurements indicated comparable hydration and barrier function between treatment sides. Subjects also reported a strong preference for ARS, citing ease of use, simplicity, and overall experience.
Conclusion:
In this split-face pilot study, ARS demonstrated comparable or greater improvement versus a three-product treatment regimen, with improved user experience and preference for a simplified routine. These findings support the potential of ARS to consolidate multiple treatment steps into a single treatment product.
Introduction
Topical skincare regimens designed to address visible signs of aging frequently incorporate multiple treatment products, each featuring a distinct hero ingredient. While these multi-step approaches are widely utilized, adherence to topical dermatologic regimens can be variable in real-world use. There is increasing interest in formulations capable of delivering multiple functional benefits within a single treatment step, with the potential to improve ease of use and overall user experience while maintaining efficacy.
Advanced Regenerative Serum (ARS) was developed featuring multiple hero ingredients, designed to support multiple pathways associated with visible skin aging within a single topical product.
The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ARS compared to a multi-product treatment regimen approach in a controlled split-face design, allowing direct comparison of treatment steps under consistent conditions.
Methods
Study Design:
This was an 8-week, split-face pilot study conducted in female subjects (n=6) with mild to moderate signs of facial aging. Each subject served as her own control.
Population:
Female subjects aged 44–71 years with Fitzpatrick skin types II–IV and mild-to-moderate facial aging.
Treatment Regimens:
| ARS Side | Comparator Side |
|
|
|
|
| -- |
|
| -- |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Cleanser and sunscreen were consistent across both sides; moisturizers differed between treatment arms as part of the assigned regimens.
Assessments
Blinded Investigator Grading:
A board-certified dermatologist performed blinded evaluations using the Modified Griffith’s scale across the following parameters (10-point scale where 0 = none/best possible and 9 = severe/worst possible):
- Fine lines/wrinkles
- Radiance/brightness
- Plumpness (volume)
- Elasticity
- Skin roughness
- Sagging
- Overall skin quality/appearance
Subject-Rated Efficacy Assessments:
Subjects completed self-assessment questionnaires evaluating perceived changes in visible skin attributes, including fine lines/wrinkles, skin tone, plumpness/volume, sagging, facial definition, skin crepiness, and overall appearance.
Product Experience & Preference Questionnaire:
Subjects completed questionnaires evaluating product aesthetics, ease of use, regimen simplicity, routine completion time, overall product preference, and skin feel during use.
Bioinstrumentation:
| Tewameter® TM Hex | MoistureMeterD |
| (Courage + Khazaka electronic GmbH, Köln, Germany) for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) correlating to barrier function.² | (Delfin Technologies, Finland) for skin hydration.³ |
 |
 |
Photography:
Standardized digital imaging was performed at baseline and throughout the study (weeks 2, 4 & 8) using a VISIA® CR system (Canfield Scientific, Inc, Parsippany, NJ).
Results: Blinded Investigator Assessment
Blinded grading demonstrated greater improvement on the ARS-treated side across multiple parameters, including fine lines/wrinkles, radiance/brightness, plumpness/volume, elasticity, skin roughness, and overall skin quality/appearance. Improvements in sagging were comparable between treatment sides.
Modified Griffith's Scale
Results: Subject-Rated Efficacy
Subjects self-reported improvements across evaluated efficacy attributes, including fine lines, coarse wrinkles, skin tone, plumpness/volume, sagging, facial definition, skin crepiness, and overall appearance. A high proportion of subjects reported ARS performed equal or better compared to comparator three-product treatment regimen.
Hydration and Barrier Function
Instrumental measurements indicated comparable hydration and barrier support between treatment sides at Week 8.
Product Experience & Preference
Subjects reported a strong preference for the ARS treatment approach:
|
83% |
100% |
100% |
83% |
|
preferred the ARS treatment approach overall |
found the ARS treatment approach easier to use and maintain |
reported a more streamlined routine with ARS |
reported ARS made their skin feel better during use |
Results: Representative Images
Standardized photography demonstrated visible improvements over time on both treatment sides under consistent conditions. Baseline and post-treatment images were used to support the interpretation of results.
Discussion
In this split-face pilot study, ARS demonstrated comparable or greater improvement across multiple investigator-assessed and subject-reported parameters relative to a three-product treatment regimen approach. By maintaining consistent use of cleanser and sunscreen across both sides of the face, the study design enabled direct comparison of treatment steps, although moisturizers differed between treatment arms. While both approaches resulted in visible improvement, ARS achieved comparable or numerically greater improvement while simplifying the treatment routine. Importantly, subject preference consistently favored the simplified ARS treatment approach despite the comparator side incorporating multiple treatment products targeting similar visible aging concerns.
Routine simplification may be relevant in real-world settings, where adherence to multi-step topical regimens can be variable. These findings suggest that multi-functional formulations may provide an alternative approach to more complex skincare routines, while maintaining performance across key attributes of skin aging.
Limitations
- Small sample size (n=6)
- Short duration (8 weeks)
- Pilot study design
- No statistical analysis performed
Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings in larger populations. Results should be interpreted within the context of the pilot study design.
Conclusion
Advanced Regenerative Serum demonstrated greater efficacy versus a three-product treatment regimen in a split-face pilot study, with strong subject preference for a simplified treatment routine. These results support the potential of ARS to deliver multi-benefit outcomes within a single treatment step.
Disclosures
This study was sponsored by Ourself. Data on file.
- Griffiths CE, Wang TS, Hamilton TA, et al. A photonumeric scale for the assessment of cutaneous photodamage. Arch Dermatol 1992;128:347-51.
- Fluhr JW, et al. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL): measurement and clinical relevance in dermatology. Skin Res Technol. 2006;12(2):75–82.
- Clarys P, et al. Skin hydration measurements: comparison between electrical methods and corneometry. Skin Res Technol. 2012;18(3):316–323.
