Should We Be Renaming Anti-Wrinkle Injections as Muscle Relaxants?
Clinics and clients already turn to botulinum toxin for far more than softening a frown. We use it to quiet masseter overactivity, to ease chronic migraine, to reduce severe underarm sweating. Yet the public story is still trapped in anti-wrinkle. That label narrows expectations, skews consent conversations and keeps the debate stuck in aesthetics when the medicine’s value is broader. Is it time to call these injections what they functionally are in everyday language, muscle relaxants?
Botulinum toxin reduces acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction. The effect is local, reversible and dose dependent. Frame it that way and you change the consultation. Patients understand that outcomes come from targeted relaxation of specific muscles, not from filling or stretching skin. That shift matters for assessment and for consent, because it puts anatomy, dose and duration at the centre rather than vague promises.
As Dr Jennifer Owens, Founder and Medical Director of The Glow Clinic puts it: “Anti-wrinkle injections are often thought of as magic wrinkle erasers, but that’s not quite how they work. The medication used - botulinum toxin A, known by various brand names - acts as a muscle relaxant. When used for aesthetic purposes, it relaxes specific facial muscles that contribute to certain lines and wrinkles. This is why not every wrinkle can be softened with injections: if a line is caused by skin changes rather than muscle activity, a muscle relaxant won’t resolve it. By helping patients understand this distinction, we can set realistic expectations and choose the right treatment for each individual, whether that involves muscle relaxants, volume restoration, skin treatments, or a combination.”
Look at the everyday realities in clinic. For bruxism, carefully selected patients benefit when overactive masseters are quietened, though technique and dosing make or break results. In neurology, onabotulinumtoxinA can prevent chronic migraine after standard preventives fail. In dermatology, it can reduce severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis when topicals are not enough. One plain-English class name that links these uses helps teams speak a common language across services, makes cross-referral cleaner and aligns aftercare.
Language also shapes risk. Many disappointments come from misbeliefs that toxin can lift or replace volume. Calling the class muscle relaxants narrows the claim to what the medicine actually does. It guides patients away from filler expectations and prompts better talk about alternatives and combinations. Where lines are driven by dermal change, you set that out and propose volume restoration or skin treatments. Where expression dynamics are the issue, you discuss which muscles to treat, at what dose, for what likely duration.
There is another benefit. Toxin is a charged word that invites sensational headlines and patient anxiety. Muscle relaxant reads as medicine. It reduces brand genericisation, which is overdue. Botox is a trademark, one of several licensed botulinum toxin A products. A neutral class name keeps the focus on assessment and safety, not on a single brand standing in for the whole category.
The legal reality still bites, and readers must respect it. In the UK, prescription only medicines cannot be advertised to the public. Regulators have already ruled that euphemisms such as anti-wrinkle injections or wrinkle relaxing amount to implied promotion of botulinum toxin. If you use muscle relaxant as a public marketing hook for toxin services, you are likely to be caught by the same rules. Keep medicine detail inside prescriber led consultations or in clearly restricted professional channels. Public copy can spotlight the consultation and the clinical concern without naming or implying a prescription medicine.
None of this means the language change should wait. Adopt class based wording in professional materials now, in consent forms, in dose logs, in referral letters and in HCP education. Then push for a sensible regulatory update that allows neutral, non brand, class level information for public education, with strict guardrails on claims, pricing and inducements. England’s incoming licensing scheme for non surgical procedures is an opportunity to pair stronger safeguards with clearer language that improves understanding.
Anti-wrinkle is reductive, Botox is a brand, and the public deserves language that maps to mechanism and scope. Muscle relaxant is the plain, accurate descriptor that links aesthetic and therapeutic care, supports better consent and lowers stigma. Use it where you can today, argue for its careful adoption in consumer education, and keep your marketing compliant while the rules catch up.
