Dermalia
← All articles

Before/after with skin analysis, what makes treatment documentation reliable

A before photo and an after photo are not enough. Anyone documenting filler, botox, microneedling or laser therapies needs reproducible captures, normalised positioning and comparable score values. We walk through the five requirements a skin analysis must meet for honest before/after.

Updated 22 May 2026 · 7 min read

Before/after comparisons are standard in aesthetic medicine for internal treatment documentation and the patient conversation. Advertising with before/after images is prohibited in Germany for almost all aesthetic procedures after the Federal Court of Justice ruling of 31 July 2025 (case I ZR 170/24), more on that below. This article describes how to produce reproducible before/after captures for the patient record and the internal conversation, not for marketing material.

1. Reproducible head positioning

Without identical head positioning between before and after capture, a comparison is worthless. A capture tilted by three degrees shows shadows in the nasolabial region not present in the straight capture, which reads as deterioration even though nothing happened. Solutions: stationary chin rest with forehead support (typical for VISIA), or anatomical landmark normalisation on a 3D mesh (typical for Isemeco). Handheld smartphone captures are not acceptable in this discipline.

2. Identical illumination

Window daylight changes with time of day and cloud cover. Ceiling lights reflect differently depending on skin moisture. A professional skin analysis device has a closed light chamber with calibrated LEDs (white, UV, polarised) and makes the capture independent of room light. Skipping this means comparing apple with pear half a year later.

3. Quantified values instead of impression

A "looks better" does not carry a consultation. Patients want numbers to compare. The most important values for aesthetic before/after statements:

  • Wrinkle volume per region in mm³: Measurement value for longitudinal documentation of botox and filler treatments. A numeric change such as "0.4 mm³" is verifiable, "visible improvement" as a claim is not.
  • UV marker count per region: Measurement value for longitudinal documentation of IPL and laser treatments. A score "UV markers: 42 to 28" is a concrete data point.
  • Skin age estimate: A skin-age progression over months provides a concrete conversation format. From the practice perspective this is a frequently mentioned anchor in consultations.
  • Volume contour in ml: Relevant for filler and fat transfer. "Cheek volume changed by 0.3 ml" is a quantifiable measurement statement, not an outcome promise.
  • Redness area in mm²: Relevant for rosacea and vascular laser therapies. "Redness reduced by 23 %" is a concrete measurement entry for the record; the word "better" does not belong in the documentation.

4. Reliable data retention

A before capture is worthless if it cannot be found three months later. The practice needs a clear data architecture: patient record linked to all captures, data encrypted at rest, backup strategy, and GDPR-compliant deletion timing. Anyone wanting five-year before/after comparisons must retain the before data for five years, and GDPR-compliantly so.

5. Patient readability of the report

A PDF with eight score axes is useful for the practice but hard for patients to read. The before/after report needs a clear visual hierarchy: a score comparison at the top (three axes, before and after values side by side), below the image comparisons (left before, right after, same size, same illumination), and at the end a brief sentence-explanation of what changed. More is confusing.

What before/after marketing in Germany is not (anymore)

Three common practices are no longer admissible under professional or competition law since the BGH ruling of 31.07.2025 (case I ZR 170/24):

  • Advertising with before/after images for aesthetic procedures: The BGH ruling explicitly extends the advertising prohibition of § 11(1) S. 3 No. 1 HWG to hyaluronic acid and botox injections. Practice website, Instagram, TikTok, all distribution channels are affected. Fines up to 50,000 EUR under § 15 HWG are possible.
  • Staged illumination in patient records: Before under ceiling light (shadows), after with ring light (even). The documentation is forensically detectable as manipulated and unconvincing in consultation.
  • Selective image picking without disclosure: If the best result from ten patients is shown as "typical before/after", that is misleading, even inside the practice. In permitted clinical documentation, the patient-specific course belongs in the respective record, not in a curated best-of collection.

What stays permitted: the use of captures inside the patient record as part of treatment documentation, showing them in the personal consultation between practitioner and patient, and use inside the individual report the patient receives. The report is patient documentation, not advertising material.

Practical implementation in the consultation

We recommend the following flow. First appointment: complete skin analysis with all score values and 3D model, report goes to the patient by email. Treatment runs (one or several sessions). Follow-up after 3 months: re-capture with the same protocol, the score change is shown in the same report layout. Patients see before-score on the left, after-score on the right, with absolute and relative change. This form is sober, honest and convinces by being concrete, not by being glossy.

Sources and further reading

As of May 2026. This article describes the state of the HWG after BGH case law. It does not replace medical-law advice in any concrete case.

Related