The field of medical aesthetics has evolved dramatically over the past few decades, transforming the way individuals and clinics approach minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Among the most well-known treatments is Botox® (onabotulinumtoxinA), a household name that has shaped much of the aesthetics landscape since its introduction. However, Botox® is certainly not alone—an array of injectable products, each offering unique benefits, have broadened the options for patients and practitioners alike.
Understanding the comparative history of Botox® vs other injectables is crucial for both clinic owners seeking the best solutions for their clients and consumers eager to make informed choices.
We’ll take a look at the origins, clinical implications, and differences between Botox® and other injectable alternatives such as Dysport®, Xeomin®, Jeuveau™, as well as dermal fillers like Juvederm®, Restylane®, and others. Whether you are a medical aesthetic professional or a consumer interested in the latest advancements, this guide provides insights into why these products emerged, how they are used, and what sets them apart.
The story of Botox® begins in the late 20th century, when it was first used for therapeutic purposes to treat muscle spasms and various neuromuscular disorders. Derived from botulinum toxin type A, Botox® was originally intended to manage conditions such as blepharospasm (uncontrollable blinking), strabismus (crossed eyes), and cervical dystonia (involuntary neck muscle contractions). In 1989, Botox® received its first FDA approval for these medical indications.
Its aesthetic potential was discovered somewhat serendipitously by Canadian ophthalmologist Dr. Jean Carruthers and her husband, dermatologist Dr. Alastair Carruthers, in the late 1980s. They noted that patients treated with Botox® for muscle spasms experienced a smoothing of worry lines between the eyebrows—ushering in a new era of cosmetic injectables. In 2002, the FDA approved Botox® for cosmetic use to temporarily improve the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines (frown lines between the eyebrows).
Learn to Start a Profitable Aesthetics Practice in Just 4-Days!
June 6-9 (only 5 spots left!)
in sunny Scottsdale, AZ
Start your transitioning to aesthetic medicine and learn everything you need to grow a profitable aesthetics practice in just 4-days!
September 5-8
Scottsdale, AZ
*Members preferred price for 4-day accelerated program. Save $3,605! Membership is only $295/yr and can be added during registration. Add a friend or team member and save $1,000 more on their 4-day registration!
| Year | Product (Brand) | Type | Key Milestone |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | Botox® | Neurotoxin | FDA-approved (medical use) |
| 2002 | Botox® | Neurotoxin | FDA-approved (cosmetic use) |
| 2003 | Restylane® | Hyaluronic Acid Filler | FDA-approved |
| 2006 | Juvederm® | Hyaluronic Acid Filler | FDA-approved |
| 2009 | Dysport® | Neurotoxin | FDA-approved |
| 2011 | Xeomin® | Neurotoxin | FDA-approved |
| 2019 | Jeuveau™ | Neurotoxin | FDA-approved |
The overwhelming success and demand for Botox® prompted other manufacturers to create alternative formulations of botulinum toxin type A. Each subsequent neurotoxin brought subtle distinctions in protein size, molecular structure, diffusion, and clinical performance.
Introduced in Europe in the early 1990s and FDA-approved in the U.S. in 2009, Dysport® (abobotulinumtoxinA) is known for its slightly quicker onset and broader diffusion compared to Botox®. Clinics and practitioners may choose Dysport® for certain areas of the face or for patients who have developed resistance or suboptimal response to Botox®.
FDA-approved in 2011, Xeomin® (incobotulinumtoxinA) is distinguished by its “naked” formulation, containing no accessory proteins. This feature makes it a preferred option for patients who may develop immune responses to other neurotoxin products.
The newest of the major neurotoxins in North America, Jeuveau™ (prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs) was FDA-approved in 2019. Marketed as a “Newtox”, it targets a younger demographic and is packaged with a contemporary image, though its clinical effects are similar to those of Botox®.
Sign up today and expand your knowledge & skills in Botox®, Fillers, Lasers,
Chemical Peels, Microdermabrasion and PRP for Aesthetics!
| Botox®/Neurotoxins | Dermal Fillers |
|---|---|
| Mechanism: Relaxes muscles | Mechanism: Adds/lifts volume |
| Main Target: Dynamic wrinkles (expression lines: frown, crow’s feet, forehead) | Main Target: Static wrinkles, thin lips, volume loss, facial contours |
| Onset: 3–7 days | Onset: Immediate |
| Duration: 3–4 months (typically) | Duration: 6–18 months (depends on type/location) |
| Examples: BOTOX®, Dysport®, Xeomin®, Jeuveau™ | Examples: Juvederm®, Restylane®, Belotero® |
| Other Notes: Off-label uses: migraines, sweat, muscle contouring | Other Notes: Different fillers for lips, cheeks, midface, jawline, chin |
While Botox® and similar neurotoxins primarily address dynamic wrinkles by relaxing underlying muscles, dermal fillers emerged to target volume loss, static wrinkles, and facial contours. The first filler, bovine collagen, was introduced in the early 1980s but had limitations such as short longevity and allergy risk. The development of hyaluronic acid-based fillers like Juvederm® and Restylane® by the early 2000s revolutionized the field, offering longer-lasting, safer, and more natural-looking results.
Today, clinics can choose from a wide range of fillers to address different areas, from lips and cheeks to deep nasolabial folds and even non-surgical rhinoplasty. Fillers and toxins are frequently used together as part of comprehensive “liquid facelift” strategies.
| Product | Unique Feature | Typical Uses | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botox® | Original neurotoxin brand | Forehead, eyes, glabella | Trusted, versatile | Temporary, repeat needed |
| Dysport® | Diffuses slightly more; faster onset | Larger areas, broader coverage | Good for forehead, quick results | Can “spread” more |
| Xeomin® | No complexing proteins (“naked”) | Allergic/repeat patients | Less risk of antibody formation | Subtle differences |
| Jeuveau™ | Marketed as “Newtox” | Similar to BOTOX® | Modern branding, similar efficacy | Newer, less long-term data |
| Juvederm® | Smooth hyaluronic acid gel | Nasolabial folds, cheeks, lips | Long-lasting, natural feel | Swelling, bruising possible |
| Restylane® | Firmer HA gel, versatile | Lips, cheeks, tear troughs | Range of products, tried and tested | Temporary |
| Others (e.g., Sculptra™, Radiesse®) |
Deeper volume, collagen boost | Longevity, collagen stimulation | Not reversible (non-HA) |
The medical aesthetic field is rapidly innovating, with new products and techniques emerging every year. Biosimilar botulinum toxins and novel cross-linked hyaluronic acid fillers are in the pipeline. Clinics that stay informed on comparative history and ongoing advances can better counsel clients and deliver the best outcomes.
Patients, in turn, benefit from understanding the unique history, differences, and scientific merits of Botox® vs other injectables—enabling educated choices that align with personal goals and expectations.
The story of Botox® and its injectable competitors is one of scientific discovery, patient demand, and continuous evolution. For medical aesthetic clinics and consumers alike, understanding this comparative history informs safer, more effective, and more satisfying treatments. As technology and knowledge move forward, the future for injectables in medical aesthetics looks promising, offering ever more opportunities to combine science, skill, and artistry in the pursuit of natural, individualized beauty.
Botox® injections typically cause minimal discomfort, often described as a slight pinch or stinging sensation, comparable to a bug bite. To further minimize any discomfort, practitioners may use fine-gauge needles and can apply numbing cream to the treatment area before the procedure.
Botox® injections typically cause minimal discomfort, often described as a slight pinch or stinging sensation, comparable to a bug bite. To further minimize any discomfort, practitioners may use fine-gauge needles and can apply numbing cream to the treatment area before the procedure.
Botox® injections typically cause minimal discomfort, often described as a slight pinch or stinging sensation, comparable to a bug bite. To further minimize any discomfort, practitioners may use fine-gauge needles and can apply numbing cream to the treatment area before the procedure.
Attend the most comprehensive accredited AMA PRA CAT 1 CME Botox® training weekend, learn how to create a profitable practice with the top 5 most lucrative non-invasive treatments, get hands-on Botox® training in a multi-million dollar aesthetics practice and get trained in GLP-1 agonists and other medically-supervised weight loss treatments.
Scottsdale, Arizona
Save $3,605 when you become an IAPAM member and register to attend all 4-days!
Talk with a program advisor to discuss your hands-on or online training options for Botox®, Aesthetic Medicine and Medical Weight Management (GLP-1 inhibitors, semaglutide, tirzepatide and more).
The IAPAM has been helping physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants make more & work less with AMA PRA CAT 1 CME certification & training in Botox®, Aesthetic Medicine and Medical Weight Management since 2006.
Choose from online or hands-on training today!
