Yes — and unusually for cosmetic skincare, it has been measured directly rather than inferred from satisfaction surveys. Two controlled studies quantified collagen changes using ultrasound imaging and laboratory assays, and both found significant increases against untreated controls.
The in-vitro and split-face study
Barolet and colleagues, publishing in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology in 2009, took two approaches in one paper. First they treated engineered human skin in the laboratory with 660nm LED light and measured the biochemical response. Then they ran a split-face, single-blinded study on people.
The laboratory arm found a mean 31% increase in type-1 procollagen — the precursor your body assembles into mature collagen — in treated samples compared with untreated ones.
In the human arm, after 12 treatments, more than 90% of participants showed reduced wrinkle depth and surface roughness, and 87% showed improvement on the Fitzpatrick wrinkling severity scale.
The larger controlled trial
Wunsch and Matuschka, in Photomedicine and Laser Surgery in 2014, ran a prospective, randomised, controlled study with 136 volunteers. 113 were assigned to treatment groups — either 611–650nm or 570–850nm polychromatic light — and treated twice weekly for 30 sessions. 23 served as controls.
Rather than relying on self-report, they measured intradermal collagen density by ultrasound, assessed wrinkles by computerised digital profilometry, and had clinical photographs evaluated by blinded assessors.
Both light sources produced significant improvements in collagen density and wrinkle appearance against controls.
What the numbers actually mean
A 31% rise in procollagen in a laboratory model is not a 31% improvement in your face. Engineered tissue responds more cleanly than living skin, and procollagen is an input, not an outcome.
What the two studies together support is more modest and more useful: red light at these wavelengths measurably stimulates the machinery of collagen production, and that translates into visible but gradual improvement in wrinkle depth and skin texture over dozens of sessions.
This is the difference between a claim and evidence. Nobody in either study woke up transformed. They completed 12 to 30 sessions and were then measured.
Why 660nm keeps appearing
Barolet's work used 660nm specifically. Wunsch's red-light arm covered 611–650nm. This region — deep visible red — recurs throughout the photobiomodulation literature because it penetrates far enough to reach dermal fibroblasts while still being strongly absorbed.
The Roveo GlowLift Pro uses 660nm for this reason. We publish the number because a device that does not is asking you to trust an adjective.
References
- Barolet D, Roberge CJ, Auger FA, Boucher A, Germain L. Regulation of skin collagen metabolism in vitro using a pulsed 660 nm LED light source: clinical correlation with a single-blinded study. J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129(12):2751–2759. PubMed
- Wunsch A, Matuschka K. A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32(2):93–100. Journal
Roveo devices are cosmetic products, not medical devices. Cited research examines the underlying technology and is not a study of any Roveo product.