“So much better than botox--love it!”
Dysport: Worth it
Pain: Mild
I'm not sure why anyone would choose NOT to use Dysport--it either costs the same or is cheaper; works MUCH faster (I could see results within 24 hours vs. 4 or 5 days with botox); and supposedly lasts longer. What's not to like?
I will say it seems to hurt more than botox--not during the injections but afterwards. My forehead was sort of swollen for the rest of the day and felt kind of tender/bruised for a day or so. I noticed it starting to work almost immediately, and within 24 hours it had already almost totally taken affect; definitely within 48 hours it had.
The result seems to be more uniform than botox--e.g. with botox when I got btwn my eyes and upper forehead, I would still have weird wrinkles above my brows when I raised them. With Dysport, I don't have that--it just looks more natural somehow, and seems to work over a larger area.
I didn't get my crows feet this time and do admit I was a bit reluctant to use Dysport near my eyes. I asked the nurse who did my injections about the truth behind the talk about Dysport spreading into surrounding areas more and she said that is just a rumor, probably started by botox--no supporting evidence.
I also got a $75 rebate!
I would definitely, definitely recommend Dysport and I will not be going back to botox.
Oct 25, 2009Comments and replies (2)
24 posts
3 Nov 2009
Let us all know if it last longer than BOTO., It's being marketed for precisely that feature VS BOTOX.
9 posts
5 Nov 2009
The longevity is not as much a selling point as the faster action and the dispersion factor. In our practice we have seen Dysport "kick in" in the same day as injection. Also, for full upper forehead effect, Dysport has shown to provide a more widespread function that still allows natural expressions. Same as Botox? Close, but not entirely. For confined areas we'll still opt for Botox, but for the generalized effect in larger areas, thus far it is giving favorable results.