Modern skincare rests on two approaches: light that penetrates tissue to shift cellular energy and signaling, or topical molecules that work from the surface inward. Both promise rejuvenation, but operate very differently.

Light versus chemistry. Empowered cells versus exogenous signaling. Here’s how scientific studies rank them, side by side, objectively.

How Skin Ages: Fast-forward

Photoaged skin has had its structure and signalling rewritten by ultraviolet radiation, pollution, and time. Collagen fibres fracture and fragment. Elastic fibres lose integrity. The epidermis becomes uneven in thickness; melanocytes misfire, leaving islands of hyperpigmentation; microvasculature remodels in ways that change colour and tone.[1]

Chronic UV exposure triggers reactive oxygen species (ROS), DNA damage, and inflammation. Matrix metalloproteinases (collagen-degrading enzymes) outpace their inhibitors, causing net collagen loss. Fibroblasts become less responsive to cues. The result? Effective anti-ageing interventions must be able to reshape the cellular microenvironment or extracellular matrix, reduce oxidative stress and inflammation and, ideally, boost cellular metabolism.[1]

Topical Signals: Retinoids, Vitamin C, and Acids

Retinoids: Rewriting epidermal scripts

Topical retinoids are the gold standard for evidence-based cosmetic rejuvenation. They boost epidermal turnover, normalise keratinisation, and increase collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis.[1]

Retinoids are proven formulas that can reduce wrinkles. In a 12-week split-face trial, a double-conjugated retinoid cream improved fine lines and wrinkles by ~14% at 4 weeks, ~24% at 8 weeks, and ~33% at 12 weeks.[2] A large open study of retinaldehyde plus specific hyaluronic-acid fragments reported regional wrinkle reductions of ~19–34% over 90 days.[3] In an 8-week randomized trial, a niacinamide/peptide/retinyl propionate regimen matched 0.02% tretinoin for periorbital wrinkle reduction while being better tolerated.[4] The catch? Skin may experience redness, dryness, and increased sun sensitivity, especially early on. Retinoids work by pushing skin cells to renew faster. That disruption is how they deliver results, and it's also why they can feel intense at first.[1]

Vitamin C: The antioxidant scaffold

If retinoids accelerate renewal, vitamin C protects and repairs. Ascorbic acid serves as a co-factor for prolyl and lysyl hydroxylases, enzymes required for collagen crosslinking, and acts as a potent aqueous-phase antioxidant in the skin.[5]

In controlled studies, 10–20% topical vitamin C applied for 3–6 months significantly improved fine lines and skin texture, showing increased dermal collagen and enhanced dermal matrix organisation.[5][6]

Notably, the literature more often reports qualitative improvements such as smoother, less wrinkled skin with better topography rather than uniform wrinkle reduction percentages.[5][6][7] The effect is visible, but the numbers vary.

Acids: Controlled injury as a signal

Alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs) such as glycolic and lactic acid work by inducing a controlled epidermal disruption that triggers regeneration. Superficial peeling protocols and higher-strength AHA formulations are associated with epidermal thickening, increased dermal collagen, and measurable softening of fine lines in clinical studies, although many trials focus on photoageing and texture outcomes alongside other indications.[1][8]

Randomised trials of glycolic-acid peels and higher-concentration exfoliating acids show significant reductions in fine wrinkle scores and objective roughness, though investigators often favour categorical descriptors (for example, “marked” versus “moderate” improvement) over a numerical percentage.[1][8] In practice, AHAs offer a different kind of lever: less about deep architectural rewriting, more about resurfacing and incremental texture change.

Peptides and the Language of the Matrix

Peptides step into the story not as nutrients, but as information. Signal peptides, sometimes called matrikines, are fragments of extracellular matrix proteins that tell fibroblasts when to build more collagen and elastin. Carrier peptides such as GHK-Cu deliver copper ions, supporting enzymatic steps in collagen production and gene expression linked to repair and anti-inflammatory pathways.[9][10]

In a double-blind clinical trial, a nano-lipid formulation of GHK-Cu applied twice daily for eight weeks reduced wrinkle volume by approximately 32–56% vs control and outperformed a comparator formulation containing a well-known signal peptide complex (Matrixyl 3000).[9] Other peptide systems, including acetyl hexapeptide-8 and palmitoyl pentapeptide-4, show more modest but still meaningful reductions in periorbital wrinkle scores in smaller studies.[10]

Peptides therefore occupy an intriguing middle ground: less irritant than retinoids, more targeted than generic moisturisers, and capable of quantifiable changes in wrinkle architecture when used in appropriate formulas.[9][10]

When Light Becomes a Skincare Active

Photobiomodulation: energy and signalling

Red and near-infrared light in the 600–1100 nm window penetrate into the dermis, where they are absorbed by chromophores such as cytochrome c oxidase in mitochondria.[11][12] This absorption leads to increased ATP production, transient ROS signalling, nitric oxide release, and activation of transcription factors that govern cell survival, inflammation, and matrix remodelling.[11][12][13]

In effect, photobiomodulation does not deliver an exogenous molecule; it changes how existing molecular machinery behaves. The current peer-reviewed literature proposes that cellular metabolism is enhanced, which in turn supports collagen and elastin synthesis. Endothelial cells modulate local blood flow. Keratinocytes adjust cytokine output. The intervention is energetic rather than chemical.[11][12][13]

Clinical evidence: quantifiable change in wrinkles

Randomised trials and controlled studies have now moved red-light therapy beyond speculation. In one often-cited full-face study of polychromatic red and near-infrared exposure, volunteers experienced statistically significant improvements in fine lines, skin roughness, and ultrasound-measured dermal collagen density after eight weeks, compared with a placebo treatment.[14]

More recently, a dedicated mask-based protocol using 630 nm LEDs in 20 participants with facial photoaging reported 15.6% reduction in crow’s-feet wrinkle depth after 28 days, 34.7% after 56 days, and 38.3% after 84 days.[15] These changes persisted, albeit attenuated, for several weeks after the end of treatment.[15]

A systematic review and meta-analysis of LED therapies across indications found that red and red+NIR devices improve wrinkles and global rejuvenation scores with consistent analytical results for rejuvenation endpoints, reinforcing that the effect is reproducible rather than anecdotal.[16] In another LED photorejuvenation trial, 52% of subjects showed a 25–50% improvement in photoaging scores by week 12, and 81% reported significant improvement in periorbital wrinkles at follow-up.[17] These findings sit alongside Barolet’s foundational review of LED applications in dermatology, which synthesised early clinical data on wrinkle reduction and skin texture change under red and near-infrared protocols.[18]

In magnitude, well-dosed red-light protocols are on par with mid-range topical regimens: not ablative-laser dramatic, but meaningfully measurable.[14][15][16][17][18]

Comparing Modalities Without Forcing a Winner

It is tempting to rank interventions as if a single hierarchy exists, retinoids above all, then peptides, then light. The evidence suggests a more nuanced architecture.

Retinoids deliver deep structural rewiring over long time horizons, with clinically meaningful wrinkle score reductions, at the cost of irritation and photosensitivity.[1][2]

Vitamin C and antioxidant regimens support collagen synthesis and mitigate oxidative damage, with trials showing significant improvements in topography and histology, but heterogeneous reporting of exact percentages.[5][6][7]

AHAs and superficial peels offer resurfacing and fine-line softening, quantified in some trials but more often described in more subjective terms.[8]

Peptides, particularly GHK-Cu, can produce 30–55% reductions in wrinkle volume in specific formulations, acting through matrix signalling rather than broad cellular stress.[9]

Red / NIR photobiomodulation sits alongside these as a mechanistically distinct route, with ~15–38% reductions in crow’s-feet depth over 12 weeks in mask-based studies and additional LED trials showing that 52% of subjects achieve 25–50% improvement in global photoaging scores and 81% report significant periorbital wrinkle improvement by follow-up.[14][15][16][17][18]

Mechanistically, the distinction is clear: topicals are exogenous pointers, asking cells to respond to molecules they did not themselves produce. Light is an endogenous nudge, modulating energy production and second-messenger cascades already present in the cells. Both approaches can be intelligent. Both can be mis-used.[11][12][13]

For an individual, the most resilient strategy rarely rests on one tool. Instead, it layers interventions that address complementary facets of ageing biology: retinoids or peptides for matrix reconstruction, antioxidants for redox tone, gentle resurfacing for texture, and red / NIR light for mitochondrial and signalling support – always within the boundaries of what skin will tolerate.[1][5][9][13][16]

Is Beauty Becoming a Biological Dialogue?

In the end, the question is not whether skincare should be chemical or photonic. The question is how we can align interventions – molecular or energetic – with the deep logic of the tissue they touch. Ageing skin is not a static canvas; it is an adaptive system negotiating damage, repair, and resource use over decades.[1][12]

Retinoids, vitamin C, acids, peptides, and red light do not reverse time. They change probabilities within this system.

Seen this way, a well-designed skincare regimen becomes less about chasing a single miracle ingredient and more about curating a conversation between light, chemistry, and the biology of repair.

BON CHARGE

This content is for general education and is not medical advice. Our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Always follow product instructions and consult a qualified healthcare professional for guidance tailored to you. Individual results may vary.

References

1. Griffiths, T. W., Watson, R. E. B. & Langton, A. K. Skin ageing and topical rejuvenation strategies. British Journal of Dermatology 189 (Suppl 1), i17–i23 (2023).
2. McDaniel, D. H. et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a double-conjugated retinoid cream vs 1.0% retinol cream or 0.025% tretinoin cream in subjects with mild to severe photoaging. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 16, 542–550 (2017).
3. Cordero, A. et al. Retinaldehyde/hyaluronic acid fragments: a synergistic association for the management of skin aging. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 10, 252–258 (2011).
4. Fu, J. J. J. et al. A randomized, controlled comparative study of the wrinkle reduction benefits of a cosmetic niacinamide/peptide/retinyl propionate product regimen vs. a prescription 0.02% tretinoin product regimen. British Journal of Dermatology 162, 647–654 (2010).
5. Correia, M. S. et al. Efficacy of topical vitamin C in melasma and photoaging: a systematic review. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2023).
6. Fitzpatrick, R. E. & Rostan, E. F. Double-blind, half-face study comparing topical vitamin C and vehicle for rejuvenation of photodamage. Dermatologic Surgery 28, 231–236 (2002).
7. Hooper, D. et al. Antioxidant skincare treatment for hyperpigmented and photodamaged skin: multi-center, open-label, cross-seasonal case study. Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology 16, 31–38 (2023).
8. Al-Talib, H. et al. Efficacy and safety of superficial chemical peeling in treatment of active acne vulgaris. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 92, 212–216 (2017).
9. Pickart, L. & Margolina, A. Regenerative and protective actions of the GHK-Cu peptide in the light of the new gene data. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19, 1987 (2018).
10. Pintea, A. et al. Peptides: emerging candidates for the prevention and treatment of skin senescence: a review. Biomolecules 15, 88 (2025).
11. Dompe, C. et al. Photobiomodulation—underlying mechanism and clinical applications. Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, 1724 (2020).
12. Hernández-Bule, M. L. et al. Unlocking the power of light on the skin: a comprehensive review on photobiomodulation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, 4483 (2024).
13. Glass, G. E. Photobiomodulation: the clinical applications of low-level light therapy. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 41, 723–738 (2021).
14. Wunsch, A. & Matuschka, K. A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery 32, 93–100 (2014).
15. Couturaud, V. et al. Reverse skin aging signs by red light photobiomodulation. Skin Research and Technology 29, e13391 (2023).
16. Ngoc, L. T. N. et al. Utilization of light-emitting diodes for skin therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 39, 303–317 (2023).
17. Russell, B. A. et al. A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy 7, 196–200 (2005).
18. Barolet, D. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in dermatology. Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 27, 227–238 (2008).