Seoul
Chief MD, Gangnam
Duk-ha Kim
The trust our patients have placed in this clinic was built on conviction and principle. We intend to hold to both, unchanged, through the next hundred years.
Chemical peel category guide
Premium Peeling
Premium peeling is a heading that collects chemical peels under clinic-coined names. The published literature sorts peels a different way — by the depth reached, which follows from the acid, its concentration and what it is combined with — so the only question that transfers between clinics is which acid, at what strength, to what depth.
- Category, not one procedure
- Clinic-coined menu names collecting peels that the literature sorts by depth
- Standard depth classes
- Very light, light, medium and deep — each defined by named agents and concentrations
- Acne evidence base
- 12 randomised trials, 387 participants, quality rated very low to moderate; heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis
- Pigmentation systematic review
- 48 studies, 1,356 participants; in the peel studies 67% partial improvement, 33% no response, with increased adverse events versus alternatives
What is a chemical peel, and is ‘premium peeling’ a procedure?
A chemical peel is the controlled application of an acid to remove skin to a chosen depth. ‘Premium peeling’ is a menu heading rather than a class of procedure. The reference literature does not sort peels by trade name at all — it sorts them by the depth reached, and that depth follows from three things: which acid, at what concentration, and what it is combined with. This is why one menu word can sit above items that are not comparable to each other, and why the agent and its strength are the only description that transfers between clinics and between countries. Everything else on this page follows from that single distinction.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peels
How are peels classified by depth, and which acid sits at each level?
Four levels, each defined by named agents and concentrations rather than by brand. Very light peels are described with TCA at 10-20%, low-concentration glycolic or salicylic acid, and retinoic acid. Light peels use TCA at 20-30%, Jessner solution, or glycolic acid at 30-50%. Medium peels are described as TCA 35% combined with Jessner solution or with glycolic acid 70%. Deep peels use TCA above 50%, or phenol with croton oil. A 2010 review lists the superficial agents in compatible terms: glycolic acid 20-70%, salicylic acid 20-30%, β-LHA 5-10%, TCA 10-20% and Jessner solution. Note what that implies in practice — the same molecule appears in more than one class, so an acid name without a concentration does not identify a depth.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peels
What actually differs between the acids?
How they loosen the surface, and the strength at which each is used. The 2010 review describes lipohydroxy acid as targeting the corneosome-corneocyte junction so that corneocytes are detached individually, while glycolic acid and salicylic acid detach corneocytes only partly, producing shedding that comes away in clumps and unevenly. The same review groups glycolic acid at 20-70%, salicylic acid at 20-30%, β-LHA at 5-10%, TCA at 10-20% and Jessner solution together as superficial agents, which is a statement about where they are used rather than a ranking. It also sets a direction for darker skin: medium-depth peels and above call for caution, and phenol-based deep peels are not recommended for most darker skin types. No source on this page compares these agents head-to-head for a given indication.
Sources: J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peelsStatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)
What is LHA, and what has actually been published about it?
LHA is 2-hydroxy-5-octanoyl benzoic acid, also written C8-LHA — a salicylic acid derivative carrying a fatty chain. A 2016 review describes it as having a larger molecular weight and greater lipophilicity than salicylic acid, which makes penetration slower: in an in vitro measurement, 6% of applied LHA crossed the stratum corneum against 58% of salicylic acid. Two limits belong with that number. It is an in vitro measurement reported in a review article rather than the result of a clinical comparison, and this page holds no head-to-head trial of LHA against salicylic acid, so nothing here supports a conclusion that one performs better than the other in skin. Separately, a menu item named around LHA is a clinic name: the ingredient has published characterisation, the procedure name is not a standard classification.
Sources: Zeichner JA, J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2016 — lipohydroxy acid in skin care and acneJ Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peels
How strong is the acne evidence, and what do the guidelines say?
It is thin, and the guideline position reflects that. A 2018 systematic review of randomised controlled trials identified 12 trials covering 387 participants, mostly split-face, with follow-up between 8 and 48 weeks. It rated methodological quality as very low to moderate and found the trials too clinically heterogeneous to pool, so no meta-analysis was performed. Within individual trials, glycolic acid performed better than placebo, a salicylic-mandelic combination performed better than glycolic acid, and salicylic acid was favoured for comedones. The stated limitations are small samples, inconsistent concentrations and session counts, and participants who were mainly Fitzpatrick I-IV, which limits how far the findings generalise. The American Academy of Dermatology arrived at a compatible position in its 2024 acne guideline update, whose wording is that ‘Available evidence was insufficient to develop recommendations for procedures such as chemical peels, laser and light-based devices, microneedling…’.
Sources: Chen X et al., BMJ Open 2018;8:e019607 — chemical peels for acne, systematic review of RCTsAAD — updated guidelines for acne management (2024)
What does the pigmentation evidence support, and where does it stop?
Two reviews point in slightly different directions, and both come with limits attached. A 2026 review of chemical peels in pigmentary disorders reports that glycolic acid improved melasma severity in split-face comparisons and was described as equal or superior to TCA with fewer adverse events; its own stated limitations are small samples, single-centre designs and short follow-up, and no pooled figure is quoted here because none was verified for this page. A 2024 PRISMA systematic review of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation treatment in skin of colour covered 48 studies and 1,356 participants, of whom 20% were Fitzpatrick III, 40% IV, 34% V and 6% VI. Chemical peels appeared in 9 of those 48 studies (19%), where 67% of cases showed partial improvement and 33% showed no response, with a mean time to resolution of 28 days across a four-month follow-up. The authors conclude that robust efficacy evidence was lacking across all treatment groups, and specifically that chemical peels showed increased adverse events compared with the alternatives assessed.
Sources: Li & Xiang, J Cosmet Dermatol 2026 — chemical peels in pigmentary disordersMar K et al., J Cutan Med Surg 2024 — treatment of PIH in skin of colour, systematic review
If you are Fitzpatrick III to VI, how should the depth change?
Downwards, and the sources are consistent about it. The depth classification itself flags Fitzpatrick III to VI as requiring caution because of the risk of abnormal pigmentation. The 2010 review adds that medium-depth peels and above call for caution in darker skin, and that phenol-based deep peels are not recommended for most darker skin types. The 2026 pigmentary-disorder review is more specific: in Fitzpatrick III to VI, excessive depth and the inflammation that follows it can produce post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and scarring, so very superficial to superficial peels are preferred. Read that against the 2024 systematic review, where 80% of pooled participants were Fitzpatrick IV or darker and chemical peels showed increased adverse events compared with the alternatives assessed. The practical consequence is that depth is a safety decision before it is an efficacy one.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peelsLi & Xiang, J Cosmet Dermatol 2026 — chemical peels in pigmentary disordersMar K et al., J Cutan Med Surg 2024 — treatment of PIH in skin of colour, systematic review
How long does the effect last?
Depth decides more of this than any single study does. The AAD’s 2024 acne guideline update found the evidence insufficient to recommend chemical peels as a procedure at all, and that includes the interval and course length that would define how long a result holds. The acne trials reviewed here followed patients for 8 to 48 weeks and typically ran a course of repeated sessions rather than one visit, and the pigmentation review’s mean 28 days to resolution of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation sits inside a four-month follow-up — both describe a study’s observation window, not how long a peel’s visible effect persists once the course ends. What actually decides how long you see a difference is the depth chosen (superficial peels fade fastest and are typically repeated on a schedule; medium and deep peels reach further but carry the contraindications and precautions set out below), the condition being treated, and whether sun protection and skincare afterward hold the result. Ask the clinic which depth is planned, how many sessions the course involves, and what maintenance interval they recommend once the course ends.
Sources: AAD — updated guidelines for acne management (2024)Chen X et al., BMJ Open 2018;8:e019607 — chemical peels for acne, systematic review of RCTsMar K et al., J Cutan Med Surg 2024 — treatment of PIH in skin of colour, systematic review
What rules a peel out, and what has to be disclosed first?
Current isotretinoin use is an absolute contraindication, and that one does not depend on depth. Where isotretinoin has been taken within the past six months, medium and deep peels are contraindicated. Pregnancy is a contraindication for medium and deep peels. A history of herpes simplex does not rule a peel out but calls for aciclovir prophylaxis, because the procedure can provoke a recurrence. Fitzpatrick III to VI is listed as requiring caution rather than as an exclusion, for the pigmentation reasons set out above. None of this is a self-assessment: the medicines taken in the past six months, any history of cold sores, pregnancy or breastfeeding, a history of keloids or post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and any recent device treatment all have to be on the record before a depth is chosen.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peels
What should you confirm before booking?
Get the peel written down as an agent, a strength and a depth. Ask for the acid name, the concentration, whether it is combined with anything else, how long it is left on, how many passes, which depth class the plan aims at, whether the solution is neutralised, how many sessions are planned and at what interval, your Fitzpatrick type and how the depth accounts for it, what priming and aftercare are expected, and who performs the procedure. Disclose isotretinoin taken now or within the past six months, any history of herpes simplex, pregnancy or breastfeeding, a history of keloids or post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, active infection or inflamed skin, and recent lasers, energy devices or other peels. The following is general post-procedure safety guidance rather than a finding of the studies cited here: contact the clinic promptly for blistering, a suspected burn, pain that increases instead of settling, drainage, spreading redness or warmth, a crust that will not heal, or a cluster of cold-sore-like blisters. Seek emergency care for difficulty breathing or sudden swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue or throat.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)Li & Xiang, J Cosmet Dermatol 2026 — chemical peels in pigmentary disorders
Very light, light, medium or deep — what separates them on paper?
The table reproduces how the cited literature sorts peels by depth, using the agents and concentrations those sources name. Nothing here ranks the rows or predicts a result, and a clinic-coined menu name does not map onto a row on its own.
| Depth class | Agents and concentrations named in the sources | Caution for Fitzpatrick III-VI | Contraindications flagged at this depth | Confirm before booking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very light | TCA 10-20%, low-concentration glycolic or salicylic acid, retinoic acid. The superficial agent list also names salicylic acid 20-30%, β-LHA 5-10% and Jessner solution | This is the range the 2026 pigmentary-disorder review prefers in Fitzpatrick III-VI, where excessive depth and inflammation can produce PIH and scarring | Current isotretinoin use is an absolute contraindication at any depth; a history of herpes simplex calls for aciclovir prophylaxis | The acid name, the concentration, how long it stays on, how many passes, and whether it is neutralised |
| Light (superficial) | TCA 20-30%, Jessner solution, or glycolic acid 30-50% | Still within the very superficial to superficial range preferred for Fitzpatrick III-VI, but the depth classification lists III-VI as requiring caution because of abnormal pigmentation risk | Current isotretinoin use remains an absolute contraindication; herpes simplex prophylaxis still applies | Whether the plan repeats a superficial course rather than escalating depth, and at what interval |
| Medium | TCA 35% combined with Jessner solution, or TCA 35% with glycolic acid 70% | The 2010 review states that medium-depth peels and above call for caution in darker skin | Contraindicated in pregnancy, and where isotretinoin has been taken within the past six months | Why a medium depth rather than a repeated superficial course, what the healing course involves, and how your skin type was factored in |
| Deep | TCA above 50%, or phenol with croton oil | Phenol-based deep peels are not recommended for most darker skin types | Contraindicated in pregnancy, and where isotretinoin has been taken within the past six months | Who performs it, what monitoring is involved, the expected healing course, and what the alternative plan is |
Depth is a safety decision before it is an efficacy one. The 2024 systematic review of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation in skin of colour, in which 80% of participants were Fitzpatrick IV or darker, found that chemical peels showed increased adverse events compared with the alternatives assessed, and that robust efficacy evidence was lacking across all treatment groups.
Sources: StatPearls — Chemical peels for skin resurfacing (NCBI Bookshelf)J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2010 — evidence and considerations in chemical peelsLi & Xiang, J Cosmet Dermatol 2026 — chemical peels in pigmentary disordersMar K et al., J Cutan Med Surg 2024 — treatment of PIH in skin of colour, systematic review
Medical care at Abijou
Care is provided by the medical team at the branch you select. These clinicians lead the three branches linked from this guide; confirm the doctor assigned to your visit with that branch.
Chief MD, Myeongdong
Cheol-su Yoon
I want to be thinking about how the patient feels right up to the last moment of the procedure.
Chief MD, Hongdae
Jae-wook Kim
I will give my best with the attentiveness to catch even the smallest change.
Listed branch medical team — not a medical-review byline for this article.
Frequently asked questions
What is PIH, and why does this page keep returning to it?
PIH is post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation — skin that darkens after inflammation or injury, including injury delivered deliberately by an acid. It recurs here because the sources treat it as the risk that scales with how deep a peel goes rather than with what the item is called. The 2026 pigmentary-disorder review states that in Fitzpatrick III to VI, excessive depth and the inflammation that follows it can produce PIH and scarring, which is why very superficial to superficial peels are preferred in that range.
What does ‘split-face’ mean, and why does it matter when reading peel studies?
It means each side of the same face receives a different treatment, so the participant acts as their own control and person-to-person variation is removed from the comparison. It matters here because most of the 12 randomised trials in the 2018 acne systematic review used that design, and because the melasma comparisons in the 2026 pigmentary-disorder review are split-face too. The design is useful, but it does not fix small sample sizes, short follow-up or single-centre recruitment, all of which those reviews list as limitations of the underlying studies.
Why do two peels using the same acid behave differently?
Because concentration, contact time and combination set the depth, not the molecule alone. TCA appears at 10-20% in the very light class, at 20-30% in the light class, at 35% combined with Jessner solution or glycolic acid 70% in the medium class, and above 50% in the deep class. Glycolic acid runs from low concentrations in the very light class through 30-50% in the light class to 70% as part of a medium-depth combination. One acid name therefore spans several depth classes, which is exactly why a record that gives the acid without the strength does not describe the procedure.
Superficial or medium — what actually changes between them?
The agents, the contraindications and the caution attached to skin type all change. Superficial work is described with TCA 20-30%, Jessner solution or glycolic acid 30-50%; medium work is described as TCA 35% combined with Jessner solution or glycolic acid 70%. At medium depth, pregnancy becomes a contraindication and so does isotretinoin taken within the past six months, neither of which applies in the same way to a superficial peel. The 2010 review also states that medium depth and above calls for caution in darker skin, and the 2026 review prefers very superficial to superficial peels in Fitzpatrick III to VI. So it is a different risk decision, not a higher setting of one procedure.
Glycolic acid, salicylic acid or LHA — how do they differ?
They differ in how they loosen the surface and at what strength they are used, and no source here ranks them. The 2010 review describes LHA as targeting the corneosome-corneocyte junction so corneocytes detach individually, while glycolic and salicylic acid detach corneocytes only partly and shedding comes away in clumps and unevenly. The same review lists glycolic acid at 20-70%, salicylic acid at 20-30% and β-LHA at 5-10% as superficial agents. In the acne trials, glycolic acid beat placebo, a salicylic-mandelic combination beat glycolic acid, and salicylic acid was favoured for comedones — but those trials were rated very low to moderate quality and could not be pooled.
Is a chemical peel a weaker alternative to a laser or an energy device?
No comparison of that kind is supported by the sources on this page, and the guideline position covers both sides at once. The American Academy of Dermatology’s 2024 acne update states that ‘Available evidence was insufficient to develop recommendations for procedures such as chemical peels, laser and light-based devices, microneedling…’ — the same sentence includes the devices a peel is usually contrasted with. There is no head-to-head trial here, so the choice follows a diagnosis, a skin type and a risk profile rather than a ranking of categories.
Does it hurt, and what reactions did the reviews actually record?
No source on this page publishes a pain score, so the honest answer is that it depends on depth and has to come from the clinic performing it. What the reviews do record is on the safety side: the 2024 systematic review found that chemical peels showed increased adverse events compared with the alternatives assessed, and the 2026 pigmentary-disorder review warns that excessive depth and inflammation in Fitzpatrick III to VI can produce post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and scarring. A history of herpes simplex is handled with aciclovir prophylaxis because a peel can provoke a recurrence.
When can I wear makeup, go in the sun or fly home?
Only the clinic that performed the peel can set that schedule — none of the sources here publishes a downtime timetable, and the answer would differ between a very light peel and a medium one in any case. Before travelling, get the agent, the concentration and the intended depth in writing, ask how long sun protection is required and which products to use, and confirm how to reach the clinic from abroad. Contact them promptly for blistering, a suspected burn, pain that increases rather than settles, spreading redness or warmth, a crust that will not heal, or a cluster of cold-sore-like blisters.
How many sessions does the evidence assume?
No source here sets a number, and the reason is instructive. The 2018 acne systematic review lists inconsistent concentrations and session counts across its 12 trials as one of the reasons the results could not be pooled, with follow-up ranging from 8 to 48 weeks. In the 2024 pigmentation review, the peel studies were followed for four months with a mean time to resolution of 28 days. A plan should therefore state its own session count and interval explicitly, because the literature does not supply a default.
I am on isotretinoin, or I am pregnant — does either rule a peel out?
Current isotretinoin use is an absolute contraindication, regardless of depth. If isotretinoin was taken within the past six months, medium and deep peels are contraindicated. Pregnancy is a contraindication for medium and deep peels. A history of herpes simplex does not exclude a peel but calls for aciclovir prophylaxis, because the procedure can trigger a recurrence. All of this has to be disclosed before a depth is chosen rather than assessed by the patient.
What are the adverse effects the systematic reviews recorded?
The clearest finding comes from the 2024 review of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation in skin of colour: across 48 studies and 1,356 participants, chemical peels showed increased adverse events compared with the alternatives assessed, and the authors concluded that robust efficacy evidence was lacking across all treatment groups. In the nine peel studies within it, 67% of cases showed partial improvement and 33% showed no response. The 2026 review adds the mechanism to watch for — excessive depth and the inflammation it causes can produce PIH and scarring in Fitzpatrick III to VI.
Is any of this approved or guideline-recommended for acne?
No. The American Academy of Dermatology’s 2024 acne guideline update states that ‘Available evidence was insufficient to develop recommendations for procedures such as chemical peels, laser and light-based devices, microneedling…’, which means the guideline declined to issue a recommendation rather than issuing a negative one. That sits consistently with the 2018 systematic review, which rated the 12 randomised trials as very low to moderate quality and found them too heterogeneous to combine. Clinic-coined menu names have no regulatory record of any kind to check.
Why do quotes differ so much between clinics, and how do I compare them?
Because the underlying procedures differ, so align the contents before comparing amounts. Ask each clinic for the acid name, the concentration, whether anything is combined with it, the contact time, the number of passes, the depth class being aimed at, how many sessions the quote covers, and what priming and aftercare are included. Two quotes built on different acids, strengths or depths are not the same procedure, so a menu name on its own is not a basis for comparison.
Who is this suitable for, and can it be done on a short trip to Korea?
Suitability is decided at an in-person consultation, and your Fitzpatrick type is part of that decision rather than a formality. The sources flag Fitzpatrick III to VI as requiring caution, prefer very superficial to superficial depths in that range, and record increased adverse events for peels in a population that was 80% Fitzpatrick IV or darker. Tell the clinic your travel dates, current and recent medicines including isotretinoin, any history of cold sores or pigmentation changes, and recent laser or device treatments, so the depth and the follow-up can be judged before anything is booked.
How Abijou works
We started in Gangnam in 2006 and the network now runs 17 branches across Korea. The line we work to is skin transformation woven into everyday life — care you can keep up with, rather than one dramatic change.
- Across the 17 branches in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon and Busan: over 1,000 medical professionals and more than 350 certified medical devices
- Authentic products only, in appropriate amounts — the treatment is fitted to the condition, not to a package
- Prices are quoted from each branch’s published price list as it stands
Contact and location
- Phone
- 1544-0377
Free Consultation
Booking happens at the branch
There is no inquiry form on this page. Once you have picked a branch above, open that branch’s site or the official reservation center and choose a time yourself.
- No deposit and no online prepayment — everything is paid at the visit
- Per-treatment prices are published for each branch on the official reservation center
- English, Japanese and Chinese are supported alongside Korean