New search data reveal that as interest in “Ozempic face” surges, people increasingly turn to nonsurgical fillers rather than surgery to restore facial volume.
Study: Interest in Facial Volume Restorative Procedures With the Rise in “Ozempic Face”: A Google Trends Analysis. Image Credit: Alones / Shutterstock
In a recent study published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open, a group of researchers examined whether rising searches for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-related facial changes are associated with increased interest in facial volume-restorative procedures using Google Trends data from the United States from June 2022 to June 2025.
Rapid Weight-Loss Aesthetics Driving Public Curiosity
About one in eight adults in the United States has tried a GLP-1RA, which aligns with poll data indicating roughly 12 percent of adults have used a GLP-1 drug, putting semaglutide and similar drugs into daily conversations.
Rapid weight loss can reshape facial contours, flattening cheeks, hollowing temples, and loosening skin that becomes obvious in selfies and video calls. People consider several options, including hyaluronic acid fillers, fat grafting, and facelift surgery. Interest in these choices does not rise evenly across the board.
Search patterns reveal what worries people and which solutions they are actively exploring. With media attention on “Ozempic face,” understanding related procedure interest can guide counseling. The facial changes discussed in popular media may arise both from medication-specific effects and from general rapid weight loss.
Emerging evidence suggests that fat loss may be concentrated in the superficial midface fat pads, which could influence corrective strategies.
The study’s discussion also notes proposed mechanisms, such as dermal adipose alterations, changes in collagen or elastin, and oxidative effects, that may contribute to facial volume loss.
Further research should determine the most effective corrections.
Google Trends Used to Track Public Interest Patterns
In the present study, the researchers used Google Trends to quantify public interest using relative search volume (RSV), which scales search volume from 0 to 100 over a selected period.
United States data from June 2022 to June 2025 were downloaded for “Ozempic face” and procedure terms for facial volume restoration, including “facial filler,” “face filler,” “cheek filler,” “facial fat grafting,” “face fat grafting,” “facial fat transfer,” “face lift,” “facelift,” “rhytidectomy,” “neck lift,” and “necklift.”
To capture broader interest, seven related queries were added from Google’s associated topics: “what is Ozempic face,” “the Ozempic face,” “plastic surgeons Ozempic face,” “Ozempic side effects face,” “Ozempic weight loss face,” “Wegovy face,” and “semaglutide face.”
June 2022 was chosen because it immediately preceded the term “Ozempic face” entering everyday use, and because all Ozempic-related terms before this time had an RSV of 0.
Statistical Methods for Evaluating Trends and Co-Movement
Analyses were conducted in Python 3.13. Linear regression tested whether RSV changed significantly over time for each term. To evaluate co-movement between interest in Ozempic-related terms and procedures, Spearman correlation tests were performed on time-detrended series for each pair of terms.
Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. This design leverages large-scale public behavior signals without collecting individual identifiers, aligning with ethical use of anonymized, aggregate data.
Public Interest in GLP-1RA Facial Changes Increased Sharply
Search activity for “Ozempic face” increased steadily from June 2022 to June 2025. This upward trend was mirrored by related queries using drug and brand terminology such as “semaglutide face” and “Wegovy face,” as well as practical, concern-oriented queries like “what is Ozempic face” and “Ozempic side effects face.”
Taken together, these patterns indicate growing public attention to facial changes associated with GLP-1RA medications. These changes may reflect a combination of medication-related mechanisms and effects common to rapid weight loss, such as superficial midface fat loss, collagen or elastin changes, and reduced facial adipose support.
Greater Interest in Fillers, Not in Surgical Volume Restoration
During the same period, procedure-focused terms reflecting nonsurgical facial volume restoration also trended upward. General and site-specific filler searches, including “facial filler,” “face filler,” and “cheek filler,” showed consistent gains in RSV. By contrast, two terms that reflect surgical or autologous approaches, “face fat grafting” and “rhytidectomy,” did not exhibit clear upward movement over time.
These findings align with the study’s observation that filler procedures are more familiar to the public, less invasive, and more accessible than surgical interventions.
The discussion further suggests that younger populations and individuals deterred by surgical costs or invasiveness may prefer nonsurgical options, although Google Trends data cannot confirm this.
Correlations Show Fillers Rise With GLP-1RA Facial Concerns
Correlation analyses of time-detrended series clarified that interest in GLP-1RA-related facial changes tracked interest in specific procedures. Queries referencing medications or brands, such as “Ozempic face,” “Wegovy face,” and “semaglutide face,” were significantly and positively associated with “facial filler,” “face filler,” and “cheek filler.”
In practical terms, as the public searched more about GLP-1RA-related facial concerns, they simultaneously searched more about filler-based solutions. These associations reached statistical significance (P < 0.05).
In contrast, several surgical or semi-surgical terms showed significant negative associations with GLP-1RA-related searches after detrending.
“Facial fat grafting,” “face fat grafting,” “rhytidectomy,” and “face lift” tended to move inversely with “Ozempic face” and related terms. This indicates that rising concern about medication-related facial changes aligns more with interest in nonsurgical fixes than surgical ones.
Neck-focused procedures (“neck lift,” “necklift”) showed no clear associations, possibly due to lower public awareness of their role in treating GLP-1RA-related facial volume loss.
Professionalized Searches Show Greater Surgical Procedure Interest
An exception emerged for the query “plastic surgeons Ozempic face.” Unlike generic GLP-1RA-related searches, this phrase displayed positive correlations with surgical options including “facial fat grafting,” “face fat grafting,” “facelift,” and “face lift.” This suggests that individuals who search with a professional or specialist framing may be more open to procedural or surgical correction.
Additionally, facelift-related terms (“facelift,” “face lift”) had high overall RSV even though their correlations with GLP-1RA-related search spikes were neutral or negative. Surgical lifts remained broadly popular, but real-time concern about GLP-1RA-associated facial changes aligned more closely with searches for nonsurgical volumization.
Implications for Aesthetic Counseling and Future Research
The analysis shows that public attention to GLP-1RA-related facial changes is rising and aligns strongly with interest in filler-based approaches.
These patterns suggest that patients experiencing rapid facial volume loss are more likely to explore nonsurgical solutions first.
For clinicians, counseling should address expectations, longevity, and filler risks while acknowledging surgical options when appropriate. Because emerging radiographic evidence points to superficial midface fat loss, corrective strategies may differ from those used for primary aging.
Future studies should compare corrective approaches directly in GLP-1RA users, define optimal injection depth and placement, and identify when surgical solutions outperform nonsurgical ones for natural, durable results.