Dysport or Botox?
Q:
I was surfing the Web and came across some content about Dysport. They said it is a new version of Botox, but it is a bit cheaper. I’m always interested in saving money, especially on my monthly cosmetic procedure costs. But, I wasn’t sure whether it was the right decision to switch to Dysport. I want to get the lowdown on it and at least speak to someone who has used both “Botox” and “Dysport”.
I don’t want to end up using a low-quality product for cost reasons or experience unnecessary side effects in the name of crunching a few more
pennies.
Some advice would be much appreciated.
Dysport is another version of botulinum neurotoxin. As an anti-wrinkle injectable product, it has very similar functions compared to Botox when it comes to rejuvenating the face by reducing aging wrinkles.
There have been some reports of a possible shorter onset for Dysport, meaning you’ll get results quicker. Dysport has been used in Europe for a few years, but has recently made a splash in the U.S. market and became FDA approved as a treatment to rid the face of the appearance of wrinkles.
The difference between Dysport and Botox is not significant. As stated earlier, some say Dysport can achieve quicker results, while Botox takes up to four to seven days to work. But Dysport has been reported to work within two days as well. For some people, wrinkles have disappeared within a day or two of Dysport treatment.
The blazing-quick results may be an important benefit for those who want to look pretty and young before a social party or holiday get-together. However the cost differece between Botox and Dysport is not significant.
