Microneedling Depth by Area

Not yet medically reviewed. This page has not been reviewed by a licensed professional. It summarises published research, cited below, and is not medical advice. Medical disclaimer

A depth setting only means something next to the thickness of the skin it goes into, and facial skin is not one thickness. In a 2025 ultrasound study of 45 women, median skin thickness ran from 0.57 mm on the upper eyelid to 1.91 mm on the tip of the nose, with the forehead, cheeks and chin in between at roughly 1.3 to 1.6 mm. The depths used in published studies follow the same pattern only loosely. Acne-scar studies on the cheeks used settings from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm; the FDA-reviewed labelling for the first authorized pen suggests 0.25–1.0 mm on the forehead, 0.25–0.75 mm on the nose and 0.25–0.5 mm around the orbital rim, and those figures are guidance rather than trial results. The number on the dial is also not the depth reached in the skin: FDA bench tests and an imaging study in volunteers show needles stopping short of the setting, by an amount that depends on the device and how hard it is pressed.

Nothing on this page is a depth recommendation for you. It sets out what has been measured and what studies used, so a chart from a seller or a forum can be checked against it.

Microneedling depth chart: thickness and study depths by area

Skin thickness below is the median total thickness (epidermis plus dermis) measured by 75 MHz ultrasound in Korzekwa and colleagues’ 2025 study, unless marked otherwise. The study measured women only, aged 22 to 73, at aesthetic clinics in Poznań. A 2022 Shanghai ultrasound study of 118 adults (Meng and colleagues) adds the neck and jaw, and found men’s skin thicker than women’s at most facial sites.

Area Measured skin thickness Depths used in studies or labelling Notes
Forehead 1.46 mm (forehead), 1.48 mm (upper forehead), 1.50 mm (glabella) 0.25–1.0 mm in SkinPen labelling (guidance, not trial data) Supraorbital nerve branches reach the fat layer about 2.6 cm above the eye socket at an average depth of 3 mm (range 2–6 mm), in a 16-specimen cadaver study. Forehead dermis by ultrasound: 0.86 mm in women, 1.17 mm in men (Meng).
Periorbital / under-eye 0.57 mm (upper eyelid), 0.81 mm (lower eyelid), 1.24 mm (tear trough) 0.25–0.5 mm “around the orbital rim” and not within it, in SkinPen labelling (guidance). The Rejuvapen NXT periorbital-wrinkle trial started at 0.5 mm with a 1.3 mm maximum Thinnest skin on the face in every study found. A meta-analysis put the angular artery at a mean 2.38 mm below the surface at the level of the inner eye corner (95% confidence interval 1.38–3.38 mm).
Nose 1.28 mm (bridge), 1.74 mm (side of the nostril), 1.91 mm (tip) 0.25–0.75 mm in SkinPen labelling (guidance) Thick at the tip and thinner on the bridge and upper sides. The facial artery runs a mean 3.2 mm out from the edge of the nostril.
Cheeks 1.30 mm (cheekbone), 1.37 mm (mid-cheek), 1.45 mm (below the eye socket) Acne-scar studies: 1.5 mm (SkinPen trial cap; a 2026 dermaroller trial) to 2.5 mm (two split-face studies from Egypt; DP4 studies averaged 2.0–2.3 mm). Melasma pilot: 1.5 mm The only area with head-to-head depth data (see below). Cheekbone dermis 0.87 mm in women and 1.14 mm in men (Meng).
Perioral 1.06 mm (upper lip red), 1.23 mm (mouth corner), 1.62 mm (philtrum), 1.64 mm (upper smile line) No study isolating this area was found; SkinPen labelling has no row for it The facial artery runs a mean 13.5 mm out from the corner of the mouth, at a pooled mean depth of 9.7 mm at that level.
Chin 1.61 mm No chin-specific study found; included in full-face acne-scar treatments The mental nerve leaves the jawbone about 25.6 mm from the midline.
Jawline 1.20 mm (angle of the jaw); submandibular dermis 0.91 mm in women, 1.02 mm in men (Meng) No jawline-specific study found The facial artery crosses the lower border of the jaw in front of the facial vein, a mean 6.2 mm apart.
Neck Dermis 0.99 mm in women, 0.98 mm in men (Meng; the Korzekwa study did not measure the neck) SkinPen neck-wrinkle study: up to 2.5 mm, 35 enrolled The neck study is the only published trial at this site the search found.

Two cautions on the thickness column. Ultrasound and microscope measurements disagree: a 2015 cadaver study measuring under the microscope put facial epidermis at 30–63 µm (0.03–0.06 mm), while Meng’s 24 MHz ultrasound read it as 0.17–0.22 mm. And age moves the figures: in Korzekwa’s data the forehead was thinner in the 40–54 group than in either neighbouring age group.

A 2005 cadaver study (Ha and colleagues) proposed comparing sites by ratio instead, because absolute values vary so much by method. With the upper eyelid as 1, the nasal tip came out 3.3 times thicker and the brow and forehead 2.8 times. Korzekwa’s ultrasound medians give a similar ratio for the tip (1.91 ÷ 0.57 = 3.3).

Facial danger zones: the diagram

Facial treatment zones and superficial danger structures (schematic) Front-view outline of a face with eight numbered treatment zones: forehead, periorbital (under-eye), nose, cheeks, perioral, chin, jawline and neck. On the left half of the drawing, red lines show the facial artery rising past the corner of the mouth and the side of the nose, continuing as the angular artery toward the inner corner of the eye; a dashed red line shows the facial vein running behind it; and the superficial temporal artery rises in front of the ear to the temple. On the right half, gold dots mark where the supraorbital, infraorbital and mental nerves leave the skull, and dashed gold lines fan out from in front of the ear to mark the general region of the facial nerve branches. Vessels and nerves are paired and are shown on one side only. A schematic, not to scale, and not a guide to where or how deep to needle. Face zones and superficial structures Schematic, not to scale. Not a guide to where or how deep to needle. Superficial temporal artery Angular artery Facial vein (dashed) Facial artery Supraorbital nerve exit point Infraorbital nerve exit point Facial nerve branches (general region) Mental nerve exit point 12345678 Zones: 1 Forehead · 2 Periorbital / under-eye · 3 Nose · 4 Cheeks · 5 Perioral · 6 Chin · 7 Jawline · 8 Neck Artery Vein Nerve exit (foramen) Facial nerve region Paired; drawn on one side
Schematic only, not to scale, and not a guide to where or how deep to needle. Zones follow the areas in the table above. Nerve exit points are placed from cadaver measurements (Hester 2021: supraorbital, infraorbital and mental foramina 25.3, 29.6 and 25.6 mm from the midline; Christensen 2014: supraorbital nerve 2.6 cm from the midline, just above the orbital rim). The facial and angular artery course follows Yang 2014 (3.2 mm beside the nostril, 13.5 mm beside the mouth corner) and Trzeciak 2025; the facial vein runs behind the artery (Cotofana 2017; Siwetz 2024). The superficial temporal artery rises in front of the ear (Yi 2026), and facial nerve branches are drawn as a general region (Stuzin and Rohrich 2020). All these structures vary between people and are paired; each is drawn on one side.

The structures in the diagram sit deeper than most microneedling settings reach, with exceptions. When the FDA reviewed the SkinPen in 2018, the maker’s literature review said nerves that could cause impairment lay no shallower than 2 mm, the most superficial around the eyes, and that major facial arteries were “no shallower than 3-5 mm”. The pooled data published since are less tidy. Trzeciak’s 2025 meta-analysis found the facial artery around 9–10 mm deep near the mouth and nose, 4.68 mm between the nose and the eye, and 2.38 mm at the inner eye corner, with a lower confidence limit of 1.38 mm. That is inside the range of settings sold on consumer pens.

Anatomy also varies more than a drawing can show. A 2024 study of 90 dissected half-faces found an angular vein in every one but an angular artery in only 34.4%. The same SkinPen review states that “the thickness of the patient’s skin in each anatomical area to be treated is assessed by a qualified clinician”, and that it is “not recommended to treat at needle depths greater than 1.5mm”.

Why the dial is not the depth in the skin

The dial sets how far the needles stick out of the cartridge. Skin is soft, so it dents before it punctures, and part of the needle never goes in.

  • Electric pen, excised skin. Sasaki’s 2017 study measured how deep a pen’s needles actually went in skin removed from in front of the ear. Penetration “closely matched settings up to 1.0 mm, but were less consistent at settings from 1.5 to 2.5 mm”.
  • FDA bench tests. The SkinPen’s needles stayed within “+0 mm/-0.25 mm” of each of its 11 settings. The DP4 (sold as the Dermapen 4) tested within “+0.05mm / -0.4mm” of the setting in pig skin, and the Rejuvapen NXT within ±0.25 mm. For the SkinPen and the DP4 the allowed error runs almost entirely toward shallower; the Rejuvapen’s is symmetric.
  • Imaging in living skin. A 2011 Cardiff study used optical coherence tomography (OCT) on volunteers and found the skin compressed under the needles, with the channels left behind “markedly smaller than the microneedle dimensions”.
  • Pressure. In a 2010 Belfast OCT study of dissolving polymer microneedles in pig skin, 600 µm needles reached 330 µm when pressed at 4.4 N and 520 µm at 16.4 N. These were patches rather than pens, so the numbers do not transfer, but the direction does: the harder the press, the deeper the needle goes.

No published study has measured how deep a consumer pen’s needles reach in living facial skin at each setting. Bench tests in pig skin and excised human skin are the closest evidence.

Depths used in trials, by condition

Acne scars. This is where most depth data sits. The SkinPen trial behind the first FDA authorization capped treatment at 1.5 mm, with aestheticians told to raise depth until redness appeared, and the FDA summary says “Safety and effectiveness for needle depth settings greater than 1.5 mm has not been evaluated.” The two studies in the DP4’s clearance raised depth until pinpoint bleeding: settings ran from 1 mm to 2.5 mm, averaging 2.3 mm (maximum) in one study and 2.0 mm in the other. A 2026 Indian trial used a 1.5 mm dermaroller. Two split-face studies led by El-Domyati in Egypt went to 2.5 mm. In one of them (14 patients, six sessions) the side treated at 2.5 mm improved significantly more than the side treated at 1.5 mm, and the authors concluded the deeper setting was more effective clinically and on biopsy. That is one small study; no larger trial has compared depths. For how the scar indication was cleared, see the SkinPen review.

Wrinkles around the eyes. The Rejuvapen NXT clearance (K192138) rests on a single-center trial of 52 volunteers, 46 of whom completed it. The operator started at 0.5 mm and raised the depth until pinpoint bleeding, to a maximum of 1.3 mm, and the 510(k) states “It is not recommended to use the device at depths greater than 1.3mm.”

Neck wrinkles. The SkinPen neck study (K202243; Alqam and colleagues, 2022) gave four monthly treatments “at depths of up to 2.5 mm”. The trial reported significant wrinkle improvement on blinded photo ratings. Neck dermis in Meng’s ultrasound data was just under 1 mm.

Melasma. A 2017 Brazilian pilot of six women used two sessions at 1.5 mm alongside a triple-combination cream and sunscreen, and reported improvement in all six. No control group.

The SkinPen De Novo summary also cites a retrospective analysis of more than 550 patients and 3,300 procedures with a similar device, at an average depth of 2–2.5 mm, without nerve or vessel adverse events. That analysis is Sasaki’s, cited in the FDA document; its details are not in the published abstract.

What the Dr. Pen depth charts say

Dr. Pen’s US store publishes a “needling chart for normal skin” as an image (checked October 6, 2026): forehead 0.25–0.5 mm, nose 0.25 mm, around the eyes 0.25 mm, cheekbone 0.5 mm, cheek 0.5–1 mm, around the lips 0.25 mm, chin 0.5 mm and neck 0.5 mm. The text on the same page introduces it as a guide “for acne scarring treatment”, while the image is labelled “normal skin”. The figures run well below the depths in the acne-scar studies above.

Dr. Pen’s other storefront, drpen.net, has a longer table that says it is “based on needle depth recommended by microneedling pen manufacturers and practicing estheticians”. It gives thin-skin and thick-skin columns (for example cheek and chin 0.5–1.0 mm thin, 1.0–2.0 mm thick; around the eyes 0.25 mm and 0.25–0.5 mm). The same page tells home users to begin at 0.25 mm “increasing to a maximum of 1.00 mm”, then recommends 2.5–3.0 mm for stretch marks a few paragraphs later, after listing 1.5–2.0 mm for stretch marks in its own table. It also says 0.5–1.0 mm “allows us to approach the epidermis”; by the microscope measurements above, the epidermis is under 0.1 mm thick, so a 0.5 mm needle that goes in fully is already past it. The Dr. Pen A20, the brand’s FDA-cleared model, has a maximum setting of 2.0 mm, below that page’s stretch-mark figure.

Neither chart cites a study. Charts like these circulate widely, and the confusion shows. A thread titled “Need help!! Which pen do I use? I’m new and need some …” in r/Microneedling has a snippet in which the poster has seen people set their needle “at 5mm depth” while pens list 2.5 mm, and is “confused about the mm situation”.

Need help!! Which pen do I use? I’m new and need some guidance.
byu/drinkwatergotosleep inMicroneedling

Another, “First time microneedling face tips?”, has a snippet pointing beginners to “a facial chart showing depths on reddit”. Neither thread title nor snippet says where the chart’s numbers came from.

First time microneedling face tips?
byu/lb351986 inMicroneedling

Maximum depth on cleared pens

The FDA clears a pen’s maximum setting together with a recommended or studied depth, and the two are often different. All of these clearances are for prescription use; see what FDA clearance means.

Device Maximum setting Depth studied or recommended FDA record
SkinPen Precision 2.5 mm Acne-scar trial capped at 1.5 mm; neck study up to 2.5 mm DEN160029, K202243
Dr. Pen A20 (Dr.pen Microneedling System) 2.0 mm “1.5 mm (Recommended)” K230420
DP4 (Dermapen 4) 3 mm Studies up to 2.5 mm, averaging 2.0–2.3 mm K221070
Rejuvapen NXT 2.5 mm Periorbital trial maximum 1.3 mm; “not recommended” above 1.3 mm K192138

None of these documents gives a depth for a named face area except the SkinPen labelling table quoted at the top of this page. Consumer pens that are not cleared, which is most of them, have no FDA-reviewed depth data at all; check a model in our clearance lookup. For who should not be treated at any depth, see microneedling safety, and for why deeper channels change what can safely go on the skin afterward, the aftercare guide.

FAQ

What depth is used for microneedling the face? It depends on the area and the study. Acne-scar studies used 1.5–2.5 mm on the cheeks, while the SkinPen’s FDA-reviewed labelling suggests 0.25–1.0 mm on the forehead, 0.25–0.75 mm on the nose and 0.25–0.5 mm around the orbital rim. Those labelling figures are guidance, not trial results.

How thick is the skin under the eyes? About 0.8 mm. Korzekwa’s ultrasound study measured a median 0.81 mm on the lower eyelid and 0.57 mm on the upper eyelid, the thinnest facial skin in every study found.

Does a 1 mm setting go 1 mm into the skin? Not necessarily. Bench tests of cleared pens found needles up to 0.25–0.4 mm short of the setting in pig skin, and Sasaki’s study found settings above 1.0 mm less consistent in human skin. No study has measured this for consumer pens in living facial skin.

Is a deeper setting more effective? For acne scars there is one small comparison: in 14 patients, the side of the face treated at 2.5 mm improved more than the side at 1.5 mm. No study compares depths for wrinkles, pores or pigmentation.

Sources

  • PMID 41375703: Korzekwa S et al. Quantitative Analysis of the Human Face Skin Thickness-A High-Frequency Ultrasound Study. J Clin Med, 2025 (full text read, Table 1 medians). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41375703/
  • PMID 35710358: Meng Y et al. Application of high-frequency ultrasound to assess facial skin thickness in association with gender, age, and BMI in healthy adults. BMC Med Imaging, 2022 (full text read, Table 2). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35710358/
  • PMID 26508650: Chopra K et al. A comprehensive examination of topographic thickness of skin in the human face. Aesthet Surg J, 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26508650/
  • PMID 15861089: Ha RY et al. Analysis of facial skin thickness: defining the relative thickness index. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2005. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15861089/
  • PMID 27530764: Sasaki GH. Micro-Needling Depth Penetration, Presence of Pigment Particles, and Fluorescein-Stained Platelets: Clinical Usage for Aesthetic Concerns. Aesthet Surg J, 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27530764/
  • PMID 20464461: Coulman SA et al. In vivo, in situ imaging of microneedle insertion into the skin of human volunteers using optical coherence tomography. Pharm Res, 2011. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20464461/
  • PMID 20727929: Donnelly RF et al. Optical coherence tomography is a valuable tool in the study of the effects of microneedle geometry on skin penetration characteristics and in-skin dissolution. J Control Release, 2010. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20727929/
  • PMID 38159109: El-Domyati M et al. Evaluation of microneedling depth of penetration in management of atrophic acne scars: a split-face comparative study. Int J Dermatol, 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38159109/
  • PMID 39591948: El-Domyati M et al. Atrophic facial acne scars; bilateral comparison of two microneedle devices. J Cosmet Laser Ther, 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39591948/
  • PMID 41971506: Thomas NP et al. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of dermabrasion and micro-needling therapy in the management of facial scars-a clinical study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41971506/
  • PMID 35397167: Alqam M et al. Efficacy and Tolerability of a Microneedling Device for Treating Wrinkles on the Neck. Aesthet Surg J, 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35397167/
  • PMID 29183309: Lima EVA et al. Assessment of the effects of skin microneedling as adjuvant therapy for facial melasma: a pilot study. BMC Dermatol, 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29183309/
  • PMID 25357169: Christensen KN et al. Cutaneous depth of the supraorbital nerve: a cadaveric anatomic study with clinical applications to dermatology. Dermatol Surg, 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25357169/
  • PMID 40164893: Trzeciak M et al. The Depth of the Facial Artery, Meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40164893/
  • PMID 24445874: Yang HM et al. New anatomical insights on the course and branching patterns of the facial artery: clinical implications of injectable treatments to the nasolabial fold and nasojugal groove. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2014. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24445874/
  • PMID 34120334: Hester KM et al. The relative locations of the supraorbital, infraorbital, and mental foramina: A cadaveric study. J Anat, 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34120334/
  • PMID 28538555: Cotofana S et al. The Anatomy of the Facial Vein: Implications for Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28538555/
  • PMID 38792988: Siwetz M et al. Course and Relation of the Facial Vessels-An Anatomical Study. Medicina (Kaunas), 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38792988/
  • PMID 42377922: Yi K et al. The Superficial Temporal Artery: Anatomical Variations in Course, Branching Patterns, Depth Relationships, and Anastomotic Networks-A Systematic Review of Cadaveric and Imaging Evidence. J Craniofac Surg, 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42377922/
  • PMID 31881610: Stuzin JM, Rohrich RJ. Facial Nerve Danger Zones. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31881610/
  • PMID 28027232: Scheuer JF 3rd et al. Anatomy of the Facial Danger Zones: Maximizing Safety during Soft-Tissue Filler Injections. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017 (background on facial vascular danger zones). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28027232/
  • FDA, De Novo decision summary DEN160029, SkinPen Precision System (Bellus Medical, granted 2018-03-01; Table 15 recommended procedure depths, bench depth tolerance, literature review on nerve and vessel depth): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN160029.pdf
  • FDA 510(k) summary K202243, SkinPen Precision System (Crown Aesthetics, 2021-04-02; neck study at depths up to 2.5 mm): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/K202243.pdf
  • FDA 510(k) summary K192138, Rejuvapen NXT (Refine USA, 2020-04-09; periorbital trial, 1.3 mm maximum, depth accuracy ±0.25 mm in pig skin): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K192138.pdf
  • FDA 510(k) summary K221070, DP4 Microneedling device (Equipmed USA, 2022-12-20; depth accuracy +0.05/−0.4 mm, clinical depths): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf22/K221070.pdf
  • FDA 510(k) summary K230420, Dr.pen Microneedling System (Guangzhou Ekai, 2023-08-11; 0–2.0 mm, 1.5 mm recommended): https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf23/K230420.pdf
  • Dr. Pen US, Needle Depth Guide (chart image “Needling chart for normal skin”, checked 2026-10-06): https://us.drpen.co/pages/needle-depth-guide
  • Dr. Pen (drpen.net), Microneedling Depth and Speed Guide (dated 2025-01-21, checked 2026-10-06): https://drpen.net/blogs/how-it-works/needle-depth-guide