Literature review highlights the risks and impacts of microplastics in aesthetic medicine, suggesting a shift toward sustainable practices.
Background: The integration of synthetic polymers into aesthetic medicine and personal care products has led to growing scrutiny regarding microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs). While these materials enhance product performance, texture, and delivery, emerging evidence suggests potential adverse effects on cutaneous health and significant environmental persistence. This review provides a comprehensive update on the presence, penetration, and toxicological impact of MPs and NPs in aesthetic medicine. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid databases for studies published between January 2021 and early 2025. Keywords included “microplastics,” “nanoplastics,” “cosmetics,” and “aesthetic medicine.” Thirty articles were selected and analyzed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) levels of evidence. Results: Recent data confirms that MPs and NPs are ubiquitous in cosmetic formulations, including exfoliants, cleansers, and dermal fillers. Advanced imaging techniques like multiphoton tomography have demonstrated the capacity of NPs (<100 nm) to penetrate the stratum corneum and accumulate in the viable epidermis. Biological studies indicate that internalized particles can induce oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokine release, and barrier disruption in keratinocytes. Environmental assessments reveal that aesthetic clinics contribute significantly to plastic waste burdens. However, sustainable alternatives and biodegradable microbeads show promising efficacy without the associated ecological or biological risks. Conclusions: The aesthetic medicine sector faces a critical pivot point regarding synthetic polymer use. While current evidence suggests potential dermatological risks particularly from nanometric particles, the industry is increasingly adopting sustainable innovations. Standardized regulatory frameworks and continued research into long-term systemic effects are essential for ensuring patient safety and environmental stewardship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: