BOTOX VERSUS DYSPORT
When I decided to plunge head on into aesthetic medicine, I promised myself that I would always be on the forefront of new cosmetic technologies. I owe it to my patients and myself that I look into and study all the best products and aesthetic advancements out there.
My injectables side of my practice has been steadily growing, (Botox and Fillers) and for the last few months I have been offering Dysport as an option to Botox (it’s pronounced “diss-port,” by the way). You might not have heard the name recently, but it is giving Botox a run for the money in the fight against wrinkles.
Botox, made by Allergan, has had a monopoly on the North American market for more than a decade. Dysport, from Galderma, has been in Europe for years and slowly gaining popularity here. They are both made from Botulinum Toxin Type A and both take the crinkles out of crows feet and smooth expression lines between the brows and on the forehead. But what about the results? Is there a difference? Can you really tell Botox from Dysport?
Personally, I think, Dysport is like “turbo-charged Botox. It starts to work faster. It starts to work in two to three days. Botox takes a week or longer. Dysport is great if you have a wedding or an ‘emergency’ party to go to. For someone who wants a fast fix, this might be a nice niche.
Comparing the two is like talking Coke and Pepsi. The outcome is similar, but everyone has a preference, I will always offer Botox and Dysport.
There’s no question Dysport has generated lots of buzz in the last year, as much for the competitive factor as for the results. The dosing is different, but it gives an equivalent effect. I think it works out to about the same cost-wise, because Dysport lasts longer and that gives better value.
Research suggests Dysport really does last longer than Botox with multiple treatments. It also provides a softer look, which is great for people who don’t want that “deer caught in the headlights” look you sometimes have in the first few weeks after Botox.
The best part, perhaps, is that it could be an option for people who are resistant to Botox. Many users don’t realize it’s possible to build up antibodies that block the effectiveness of the protein complex over time, and some are resistant right from the start. That’s a big problem for those who rely on the product to make them appear rested and happy … even when they’re not.
I’m a dedicated Botox user and decided to give Dysport a try to compare. I asked my nurse to inject it in my forehead, between the brows and on the crows feet at the outer corners of my eyes. The verdict? It’s definitely softer and feels more natural, especially when I move my forehead up and down or squint. It worked much faster than Botox, the results were obvious within two to three days of treatment.
After more than a month, the targeted areas are still smooth, as they would be with Botox. I can definitely see myself using a combination of both products — Dysport on the forehead and Botox for my frown lines— to create a more natural look.
As with Botox, it’s hard to set a price for Dysport, because every treatment is different. The number of units will vary depending on all kinds of factors, including how many times an area has been done before. After multiple treatments the muscles stay more relaxed, even though the effects are supposed to wear off in three to four months.
My forehead and the area between the eyes, for example, need less product than before because they’ve been injected with Botox many times over the last few years. The upper lip (which we didn’t treat this time) could be done weekly and I’d still have wrinkles, sorry to say.
Conclusion: Dysport provides choice, it works just as well as Botox and it’s a non-surgical way to temporarily minimize wrinkles and ease frown lines.
