Core Viewpoint - The ongoing public dispute between Huaxi Biological and Juzhi Biological highlights the competitive tension in the aesthetic medicine industry, particularly regarding hyaluronic acid and recombinant collagen products [3][10]. Group 1: Company Statements - Huaxi Biological issued a statement on June 1, 2023, supporting beauty blogger Dr. Hao Yu, criticizing an unnamed company for using "internet water army" tactics and threatening to disclose testing results if issues are not addressed [3][4]. - Juzhi Biological responded later that day, accepting an apology from the testing agency used by Dr. Hao Yu but asserting that they would pursue legal action against those spreading false information [3][8]. - Dr. Hao Yu contested Juzhi Biological's claims, stating that the testing agency's statement did not include an apology and questioned why Juzhi had not released its own testing results after ten days [9][10]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The dispute is rooted in a broader competition for market share between hyaluronic acid and recombinant collagen, with Huaxi Biological's performance declining alongside the perception of hyaluronic acid as "outdated" [10]. - Huaxi Biological's revenue from functional skincare products, which include recombinant collagen, has seen significant declines of 18.45% and 31.62% in 2023 and 2024, respectively, while Juzhi Biological's "Kefumei" brand has shown strong growth with revenues of 27.88 billion and 45.4 billion in the same years [11]. - The pricing landscape for aesthetic products indicates that domestic hyaluronic acid is positioned at the lower end of the market, with prices ranging from approximately 1,000 to 2,000 yuan per unit, while recombinant collagen is priced higher, around 3,000 yuan [13][14]. Group 3: Industry Trends - The aesthetic medicine market is experiencing a shift with the introduction of new injectable materials, which has led to a decrease in hyaluronic acid's market share from 42% in 2021 to an estimated 36% in 2024 [16]. - The emergence of new materials, such as hydroxyapatite and PDRN solutions, is expected to further challenge the dominance of hyaluronic acid, although its unique properties may still provide competitive advantages [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emerging competition and regulatory challenges in the calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA) market within the medical aesthetics industry, highlighting the recent approvals of CaHA products for facial use and the ongoing issues related to compliance and safety [5][7][11]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - CaHA, originally used in orthopedics and dentistry, is gaining popularity as a facial filler material, alongside PLLA and PCL, driven by market education efforts [3][5]. - In January 2024, it was estimated that the domestic market could consume tens of thousands of CaHA injections, potentially reaching 500,000 units annually, despite a lack of fully compliant products [5][11]. - The approval of two CaHA products for facial use in 2025 marks a significant shift towards regulatory compliance in the industry [5][7]. Group 2: Regulatory Landscape - The first approved CaHA product for facial use, Aphranal® by Moyang Biotechnology, received certification in February 2025, followed by Merz North America's Radiesse, which is the first imported CaHA product approved in China [7][11]. - The competition in the CaHA market is intensifying, with a notable reduction in the time required to obtain regulatory approval, leading to a more crowded market [8][9]. - There are concerns regarding the use of CaHA products beyond their approved indications, with many practitioners using them for facial applications despite their original intended uses being for non-weight-bearing bone defects [13][15]. Group 3: Industry Challenges - The medical aesthetics industry faces significant challenges related to the misuse of products beyond their approved indications, which is prevalent across various injectable products [15][16]. - There is currently no clear legal framework in China to regulate the off-label use of medical devices, leading to potential risks for both practitioners and patients [15][16]. - The article emphasizes the importance of proper patient consent and documentation to mitigate compliance risks in the absence of stringent regulations [16][17].