← Dermal Fillers

Dermal Fillers for Crow's Feet

Written & medically reviewed by the Dermapedia team
At a Glance

Crow's feet are dynamic lines — they are made by muscle movement, and the evidenced treatment is botulinum toxin, not filler. The lines fan out from the outer corner of the eye when you smile, produced by the orbicularis oculi muscle folding the skin above it. Relaxing that muscle is what the published trials tested.

Two toxin brands hold a US approval for this exact area. Botox Cosmetic has been approved for lateral canthal lines — the medical name for crow's feet — since 11 September 2013, at a label dose of 24 Botox Cosmetic Units, 12 per side. Xeomin gained the same area on 5 July 2024 as part of its upper facial lines indication, at 24 Xeomin Units. Units never transfer between brands; every label says so. Dysport, Jeuveau, Daxxify and Letybo hold glabellar (frown line) cosmetic approvals only.

No FDA-approved dermal filler carries an indication for lateral canthal lines. Injecting filler there is off-label. That is legal and routine — but the published filler evidence in this specific area is thin, open-label and mostly about skin texture rather than the lines themselves.

Where filler can still be relevant is next door, not on the lines. Hollowing in the temple or flattening of the upper cheek changes the tension and shadowing around the outer eye, and both of those areas do have approved products. Two fillers are approved for temple hollowing and several for the cheeks. That is a different treatment with a different aim from filling a crow's foot.

The area around the eye is one of the higher-risk places to inject. Filler entering an artery here can cause vision loss, which in published cases is usually permanent. That risk gets its own section below, and it belongs in an emergency room, not a phone call.

Key Facts

What crow's feet areLateral canthal lines, dynamic lines produced by orbicularis oculi muscle contraction
Best-evidenced treatmentBotulinum toxin injected into the muscle
Botox CosmeticFDA-approved for lateral canthal lines since 11 September 2013; label dose 24 Botox Cosmetic Units, 12 per side
XeominFDA-approved for lateral canthal lines since 5 July 2024 within its upper facial lines indication; label dose 24 Xeomin Units
Dysport, Jeuveau, Daxxify, LetyboCosmetic approval for glabellar lines only, not lateral canthal lines
Unit scalesNever interchangeable between toxin brands; every FDA label states this
Dermal fillers approved for lateral canthal linesNone
Filler evidence in this areaOpen-label and uncontrolled; a PubMed search for lateral canthal plus filler returns 10 records
Nearby areas that do have approvalsTemple hollowing (Juvederm Voluma XC 2023, Restylane Contour 2026); cheeks; infraorbital hollow
FDA general guidanceAdvises against injecting the periorbital area, glabella, nose, forehead or neck with products lacking an indication there
Serious riskVascular occlusion causing vision loss; of 318 published blindness cases with a recorded outcome, 68.2% had no recovery
Skin thickness hereAmong the thinnest on the body, which is why lumps and bluish discoloration show

Why toxin, not filler, is the answer for these lines

There are two kinds of facial line and they need opposite tools.

Dynamic lines appear when a muscle contracts and pleats the skin above it. Crow's feet on smiling, frown lines, forehead lines on raising the brows. The target is the muscle. The tool is botulinum toxin, which blocks the nerve signal telling that muscle to contract.

Static lines and volume loss are visible at rest — etched creases, hollows, deflation. The target is the missing volume. The tool is filler.

Botulinum toxin adds no volume at all. It occupies no space and fills nothing. Filler adds physical bulk and does nothing to muscle movement. A crow's foot is the textbook dynamic line, which is why the entire randomised evidence base for this area is a toxin evidence base.

The trials are large and controlled. One phase 3 trial randomised 417 people, 316 to onabotulinumtoxinA 24 Units and 101 to placebo: 63.9% versus 5.0% achieved none-or-mild crow's feet severity at maximum smile on day 30. Another randomised 787 people across combinations of upper-face areas. Both came out of Allergan's development programme — the manufacturer of Botox Cosmetic — which is normal for registration trials and worth stating. A competitor toxin not marketed in the US separately demonstrated non-inferiority to onabotulinumtoxinA for crow's feet in 290 people, with 72% responders in both arms, which shows the effect replicates outside one company's programme.

Where a crow's foot has become deeply etched and remains visible at complete rest, relaxing the muscle stops it deepening but may not erase what is already there. That is the point at which resurfacing, skin-quality treatments and, occasionally, a thin intradermal injectable get discussed — as an addition to toxin, not a substitute for it.

Which toxins are approved here, and the unit trap

Two brands hold a US cosmetic indication for lateral canthal lines:

Botox Cosmetic (onabotulinumtoxinA): Approved 11 September 2013. Label dose 24 Botox Cosmetic Units, 12 per side. Its other cosmetic areas are glabellar lines (2002), forehead lines (2017) and platysma bands (2024).

Xeomin (incobotulinumtoxinA): Approved 5 July 2024 as part of an indication covering all three upper-face areas treated at once. Label dose for the lateral canthal area is 24 Xeomin Units, 12 per side.

Dysport, Jeuveau, Daxxify and Letybo hold cosmetic approvals for glabellar lines only: Dysport's cosmetic indication additionally applies to adults under 65, which is unusual and rarely mentioned.

Now the trap. Units are brand-specific and never interchangeable. Dysport's label states that its units "cannot be compared to or converted into units of any other botulinum toxin products," and the other labels say the same in their own words. "24 units" means nothing without a brand attached to it, and a number quoted for one brand cannot be carried across to another.

What is approved in fillers near the eye — and what is not

This is where a lot of published copy goes wrong in both directions, so it is worth being exact.

No FDA-approved dermal filler carries an indication for lateral canthal lines: Using filler on crow's feet is off-label everywhere in the US.

But the surrounding areas are not a blank. Several products hold approvals close by:

Temple hollowing: Juvederm Voluma XC (2023) and Restylane Contour (2026).

Infraorbital hollow, the under-eye: Juvederm Volbella XC (2021), Restylane Eyelight (2023), Belotero Balance (+) Lidocaine (2023), and RHA Redensity Eye (2026). The claim that no filler is approved under the eyes has been wrong since 2021.

Cheeks and midface: Juvederm Voluma XC, Restylane Lyft, Restylane Contour, RHA 4 and Belotero Volume (+) Lidocaine.

Skin smoothness: SKINVIVE by Juvederm, approved for the smoothness of the cheeks (2023) and for neck lines (2026). Not the outer eye.

Hold one more fact alongside those approvals. FDA's general consumer guidance for fillers still advises against injecting the glabella, nose, periorbital area, forehead or neck, and that page has not been reworded since the product-specific eye-area approvals were granted. The precise position is: specific products now hold specific approvals near the eye, and any filler used in the periorbital region without such an indication is being used off-label in a region FDA's general guidance flags as high-risk.

The published filler evidence for this exact area

It is thin, and it does not test what most people are asking about. A PubMed search for lateral canthal lines and filler returns 10 records in total.

An open-label study in 59 women, mean age 52.6, injected a non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid — a thin skin-quality product, not a volumiser — into the lateral canthal and perioral lines at baseline, 3 weeks and 6 weeks. Skin firmness and visco-elasticity increased significantly at both sites at 8 weeks. Skin hydration did not reach statistical significance at any timepoint. Satisfaction was 93.1% at week 8, 91.1% at week 12 and 73.7% at week 16 — note the drop. There was no control group, no blinding and no randomisation, and the outcomes were device readings and satisfaction rather than a validated wrinkle scale. The authors also added oral herpes reactivation to the safety profile of intradermal hyaluronic acid in this region.

A real-world observational study followed 136 people receiving 451 injections of a Teoxane hyaluronic acid product across the periorbital region. More than 70% showed improvement on a global aesthetic scale, 84.3% were satisfied, and the effect was observed out to 12 months. Only 38 of those 451 injections — 15.1% — were for crow's feet; the rest went to the tear trough, palpebromalar groove, outer canthus and brow. It was unblinded, uncontrolled, and the product and author list point to company involvement. A subgroup of 38 injections cannot carry a claim.

Fair summary: What has been published on filler in the lateral canthal area is open-label, uncontrolled, and mostly about the texture and firmness of the skin rather than the lines produced by muscle movement.

Where filler genuinely might fit around the eye

None of this is a recommendation, and all of it is a consultation conversation. But there is a real answer to "could filler help how my outer eye area looks?" and it is not "fill the lines."

Volume loss in the temple: As the temple hollows, the skin over and beside the outer eye loses its underlying support and the whole lateral area reads as more crepey and more shadowed. Two products hold a temple hollowing indication, so this is a treatment with approved products and trial data behind it — for the temple, not for crow's feet.

Flattening of the upper cheek: The cheek supports the lower orbital rim. Restoring midface projection changes how light falls across the area and how much skin bunches at the outer corner on smiling.

Both change how the region looks without touching a dynamic line. Neither stops the muscle from folding the skin, so neither replaces toxin for the lines themselves.

Also worth knowing before choosing a product: hyaluronic acid fillers can be broken down with hyaluronidase; Radiesse, Sculptra and Bellafill cannot. Around the eye, where a lump or a misplacement is highly visible and the skin is unforgiving, that difference is not academic. A consensus review of calcium hydroxylapatite specifically advises against using it in the periocular area because of the higher rate of nodules there.

The risks that are specific to this region

Vascular occlusion is the serious risk of every filler: Material enters or compresses an artery, and blood supply to what that artery feeds stops. Around the eye, the arteries connect directly to the circulation supplying the retina, so filler can travel backward and then forward into the vessels that feed the eye. The volume needed is tiny — measurements of the supratrochlear artery from the glabella to its branch point put it at an average of 0.085 mL, less than a tenth of a standard syringe.

The scale of the published record: a review of a century of cases found 511 published cases of blindness after filler, 365 of them reported between 2018 and 2023. The materials in those 365 were hyaluronic acid 79.6%, autologous fat 13.5% and calcium hydroxylapatite 1.6%. Of 318 cases with a documented outcome, 6.0% recovered completely, 25.8% improved partly and 68.2% did not recover at all. No treatment used was significantly associated with improvement; what predicted outcome was how much vision was preserved at the moment it happened. These are counts of published cases with no denominator, so they cannot be converted into a personal risk figure — but they establish that the outcome is usually permanent and that hyaluronidase is not a reliable rescue for it.

The other periorbital problems are less dangerous and more common:

Tyndall effect: A blue-grey cast where gel sits too superficially under skin this thin. Widely reported; no reliable incidence figure has been published.

Persistent swelling: This region drains poorly and hyaluronic acid draws in water, so puffiness can last months.

Lumps and contour irregularities, which show far more here than elsewhere.

Cold sore reactivation after intradermal injection in this area has been reported.

A survey of 52 experienced injector-trainers is worth one more line: 62% reported at least one intravascular injection in their career, and pain was mild or absent in 47% of those events. Pain is not a reliable warning sign.

Questions worth asking at a consultation:

Are my crow's feet only there when I smile, or are they visible at complete rest?

Which brand of toxin, and how many of that brand's units?

If filler is being suggested, which area is it going into and what is that product approved for?

Is the product you are using dissolvable?

What is your plan and referral pathway if vision changes during or after the appointment?

Get emergency help now

Go to an emergency department or call 911 for any of these, during or after the appointment. They can indicate filler in a blood vessel, and time matters in hours.

Any change in vision — blurring, a dark or missing patch, double vision or loss of sight in either eye: This is the single most important item on the page.

Sudden severe pain, or pain out of proportion to the procedure

Skin turning white or pale (blanching), then dusky, purple or mottled

Weakness, facial droop, slurred speech or any other stroke-like symptom

Call your injector if

Swelling keeps increasing after the first few days rather than settling

A lump forms and does not settle, or one appears weeks or months later

Redness spreads outward from the injection site, or the area becomes warm and tender

The skin under the eye or beside it takes on a blue-grey tint

Tenderness or swelling appears weeks after treatment, which can indicate a delayed inflammatory reaction or an infection

A cold sore develops around the treated area

Questions people ask

+
Can dermal filler get rid of crow's feet?Crow's feet are made by muscle movement, and no filler stops a muscle contracting. Botulinum toxin is the treatment with FDA approval for this area and with large randomised placebo-controlled trials behind it. Filler used on crow's feet is off-label, and the published evidence for it is open-label, uncontrolled, and mostly about skin texture rather than the lines.
Is any filler FDA-approved for crow's feet?No FDA-approved dermal filler carries an indication for lateral canthal lines. Products are approved nearby — for the temples, the under-eye hollow, the cheeks and for skin smoothness of the cheeks and neck — but none of those indications covers the outer corner of the eye.
Which toxins are approved for crow's feet?Botox Cosmetic since 11 September 2013, at a label dose of 24 Botox Cosmetic Units, 12 per side. Xeomin since 5 July 2024 as part of its upper facial lines indication, at 24 Xeomin Units. Dysport, Jeuveau, Daxxify and Letybo hold cosmetic approvals for glabellar lines only. Units are specific to each brand and cannot be converted between them.
My crow's feet are still there when my face is relaxed. Does that change the answer?It means there is a static component as well as a dynamic one. Relaxing the muscle stops the crease deepening but may not erase what is already etched in. That is where resurfacing, skin-quality treatments and sometimes a thin intradermal injectable get discussed — added to toxin, not instead of it.
Could filler help how the area around my eyes looks at all?Possibly, but in a different place. Hollowing in the temple and flattening of the upper cheek both change the shadowing and skin tension around the outer eye, and both of those areas have approved filler products with trial data. That is treating volume loss next to the eye, not filling a dynamic line.
Why is the area around the eye considered high-risk?The arteries here connect directly to the circulation supplying the retina, so filler can reach the eye's blood supply. The skin is also among the thinnest on the body, so superficial product shows as a blue-grey tint, and the region drains poorly, so swelling can persist. FDA's general guidance still advises against injecting the periorbital area with products that do not hold an indication there.
If something goes wrong, can it be undone?It depends entirely on the material. Hyaluronic acid fillers can be broken down with hyaluronidase. Radiesse, Sculptra and Bellafill cannot — hyaluronidase has no effect on them and no reversal agent is approved. For vision loss specifically, hyaluronidase is not a reliable rescue: in the published case record, most people did not recover their sight.
Are lumps common in this area?No reliable incidence figure has been published for lumps or for the Tyndall effect in the periorbital region. What is documented is that both are reported often enough to appear as distinct complication categories in reviews of periorbital filler, and that they are more visible here than anywhere else on the face because the skin is so thin.

References

+
US Food and Drug Administration. BOTOX COSMETIC (onabotulinumtoxinA) for injection, prescribing information, revised 10/2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/103000s5316s5319s5323s5326s5331lbl.pdf
The verbatim cosmetic indications, including moderate to severe lateral canthal lines associated with orbicularis oculi activity, and the label dose of 24 Botox Cosmetic Units.
US Food and Drug Administration. XEOMIN (incobotulinumtoxinA) for injection, prescribing information, revised 2/2026. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2026/125360s110lbl.pdf
The upper facial lines indication covering glabellar, forehead and lateral canthal lines, with 64 Xeomin Units total and 24 Xeomin Units for the lateral canthal area.
US Food and Drug Administration. DYSPORT (abobotulinumtoxinA) for injection, prescribing information, revised 9/2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/125274s125lbl.pdf
Establishes that Dysport's cosmetic indication is glabellar lines only, in adults under 65, and carries the label statement that its units cannot be compared to or converted into units of any other botulinum toxin product.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30859038/
Phase 3 trial, 417 participants, 316 given 24 Units of onabotulinumtoxinA and 101 placebo: 63.9% versus 5.0% achieved none or mild crow's feet severity at maximum smile on day 30. Part of the Allergan development programme.
Dermatol Surg. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30096106/
787 participants in the intention-to-treat population, comparing 40 Units for forehead and glabella against 64 Units adding 24 Units for the lateral canthal lines, against placebo. Allergan programme.
Sulovsky M, et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34559948/
Prospective open-label uncontrolled multicentre study, 59 women, mean age 52.6. Firmness and visco-elasticity improved at 8 weeks; hydration did not reach significance at any timepoint; satisfaction fell from 93.1% at week 8 to 73.7% at week 16. No control, no blinding, no validated wrinkle scale, and the source for oral herpes reactivation in this area.
Bhojani-Lynch T, et al. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40442496/
Observational, Level of Evidence III: 136 subjects and 451 injections across the periorbital region, of which only 38 injections (15.1%) were for crow's feet. Unblinded, no control arm, and the product and author list indicate manufacturer involvement.
Doyon VC, Liu C, Fitzgerald R, et al. Update on blindness from filler: review of prognostic factors, management approaches, and a century of published cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2024;44(10):1091-1104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38630871/
511 published cases since 1906, 365 of them from 2018 to 2023. Materials: HA 79.6%, autologous fat 13.5%, CaHA 1.6%. Of 318 cases with a documented outcome, 6.0% complete recovery, 25.8% partial improvement, 68.2% no recovery; no treatment was significantly associated with improvement. A literature case-count with no denominator.
Beleznay K, Carruthers JDA, Humphrey S, Carruthers A, Jones D. Update on avoiding and treating blindness from fillers. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(6):662-74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30805636/
The retrograde embolism mechanism, and the measurement that filling the supratrochlear artery from the glabella to its bifurcation took an average of 0.085 mL, range 0.04 to 0.12 mL. Level of evidence 5.
Goodman GJ, Roberts S, Callan P. Experience and management of intravascular injection with facial fillers: results of a multinational survey of experienced injectors. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:549-55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27286849/
Survey of 52 injector-trainers in 16 countries: 62% reported at least one intravascular injection, and pain was mild or absent in 47% of events. Self-selecting survey with no denominator.
Nalcı Baytaroğlu H, Hoşal MB. Complications of periorbital cosmetic hyaluronic acid filler injections: a major review. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2025;55:276-86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40963300/
Classification of periocular filler complications into immediate, early, late, blue discoloration, xanthelasma and filler in the orbit, with immediate reactions most reported, followed by early contour irregularities and blue discoloration.
Sollitto CF, Narduzzi M, Wolinsky C. A systematic review of platelet-rich plasma versus platelet-rich fibrin for periorbital rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(11):e70524. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41190633/
14 studies; the source for the periorbital filler risk profile of vascular occlusion, visual compromise, nodules, asymmetry, Tyndall effect and prolonged oedema being named as the motivation for alternatives. Authors declare no conflicts.
Emer J, Sundaram H. Aesthetic applications of calcium hydroxylapatite volumizing filler: an evidence-based review and discussion of current concepts. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12(12):1345-54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24301235/
Advises against calcium hydroxylapatite in the periocular area because of increased nodule incidence, and states that CaHA is not reversible while HA is fully reversible with hyaluronidase.
US Food and Drug Administration. Dermal fillers (soft tissue fillers). https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/dermal-fillers-soft-tissue-fillers
FDA's full risk list and the general guidance advising against injecting the glabella, nose, periorbital area, forehead or neck. Content current as of 6 July 2023 and not reworded since the product-specific eye-area approvals.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA-approved dermal fillers. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/fda-approved-dermal-fillers
The list of approved filler products and the areas each is indicated for, including temple, cheek and infraorbital indications.
Comparison of HU-014 with onabotulinumtoxinA for lateral canthal lines. Dermatol Surg. 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795571/
Randomised non-inferiority trial, 290 participants, 72% responders in both arms. HU-014 is not marketed in the US. It shows the crow's feet toxin effect replicates outside the Allergan development programme; a non-inferiority result is not a demonstration that either product is better.
← Back to Dermal Fillers