Flexible silicone mask paired with a separate handheld controller, switching between a red+near-infrared mode and a red+blue mode. Its FDA 510(k) clearance quotes an indications-for-use statement naming this exact device for two uses.
MZ Skin LightMax SuperCharged LED Mask 2.0 pairs red, near-infrared, and blue light in two selectable modes - Anti-Ageing (red + NIR) and Anti-Blemish (red + blue) - with a 10-minute auto-shutoff timer. Its FDA 510(k) clearance, K213184, quotes an indications-for-use statement naming this device by name for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and for full-face wrinkles. Manufacturer materials disagree with each other on how often to run the Anti-Ageing mode; both numbers are shown below rather than picked.
MZ Skin LightMax SuperCharged LED Mask 2.0 is cleared under FDA 510(k) K213184, whose own indications-for-use section names this device directly rather than relying on a shared product code (see Quick Answer above for what it's indicated for). Manufacturer specs for the Anti-Ageing schedule don't fully agree with each other; see the registry check below.
FDA status: Record found under this name (K213184) - Read from the 510(k) filing itself
Check current price on Amazon → (paid link)
Per K213184’s own device description: the system is a flexible silicone mask containing the LEDs, connected to a separate handheld controller. Pressing and holding one of two buttons selects a mode - Anti-Ageing (red + near-infrared) or Anti-Blemish (red + blue) - and starts a 10-minute countdown; the session stops automatically at zero, or earlier if the user presses the button again. The filing describes the underlying mechanism in two different terms depending on mode: “Photobiomodulation” for the wrinkle mode, “endogenous Photodynamic therapy” for the acne mode. The mask itself has no sensors and makes no measurements - per the filing, “the equipment is not used to make measurements of any sort, or to draw any conclusions regarding the indication to treat.”
K213184 names two predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence - both already relevant to this catalog. faceLITE (K191629) is the same clearance our Omnilux Contour Face review traces back to, though Omnilux Contour Face is a different product from Omnilux CLEAR, the other predicate cited here. Figures below are all from K213184’s own comparison table (section 5.4), not manufacturer marketing copy.
| MZ Skin LightMax 2.0 | Omnilux CLEAR (K210948) | faceLITE (K191629) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product code | OLP, OHS | OLP | OHS |
| Blue / Red intensity | 28 / 16 mW/cm² | 28 / 16 mW/cm² | - |
| Red / NIR intensity | 18 / 11 mW/cm² | - | 15 / 15 mW/cm² |
| Blue / Red dose | 16.8 / 9.6 J/cm² | 16.8 / 9.6 J/cm² | - |
| Red / NIR dose | 11 / 7 J/cm² | - | 9 / 9 J/cm² |
| Treatment time | 10 minutes | 10 minutes | 10 minutes |
| Filed protocol | Acne 4x/wk, 6wk · Wrinkles 5x/wk, 6wk | Acne 4x/wk, 6wk | Wrinkles 5x/wk, 6wk |
The filing states MZ Skin’s acne-mode output is identical to Omnilux CLEAR’s, and its wrinkle-mode output is similar to faceLITE’s - that identity/similarity claim is what the 510(k) uses to argue substantial equivalence, not an independent measurement of the retail device.
K213184’s own indications-for-use section (5.2) states:
“The MZ Skin LightMAX Supercharged LED Mask 2.0 is an over-the-counter device intended to emit energy in the red and blue region of the light spectrum, specifically indicated to treat mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face.”
“The MZ Skin LightMAX Supercharged LED Mask 2.0 is an over-the-counter device intended to emit energy in the red and Near Infra-red spectrum and is intended for the use in the treatment of full-face wrinkles.”
(The filing itself spells the device name “LightMAX Supercharged” - this review otherwise uses the spelling from mzskin.com and the product listing, “LightMax SuperCharged.”)
Both sentences name the device directly - not a product-code definition that happens to apply to a category of devices, and not a clearance traced under someone else’s brand name. This device’s indication text comes from the filing itself, read directly. Shark CryoGlow also has quoted indication text, sourced from GUDID’s summary field rather than its own filing. The remaining eleven devices in this catalog carry an acne- or wrinkle-related product code (OLP or OHS) but no indication text captured from either source yet - see the clearance check for what’s been verified for each.
Two things in the same filing don’t resolve as cleanly. First, section 5.1 (Device Description) states the blue wavelength as 412.5nm ± 7.5nm; section 5.4 (Comparison Characteristics), two pages later in the same document, states it as 415nm ± 10nm - the figure mzskin.com and our own catalog listing also use. Second, the same filing’s red wavelength is stated as 630nm ± 10nm throughout, while mzskin.com and our catalog listing both say 633nm - a gap between the filing and every marketing source, not an internal one this time. Neither is fixed here; both are shown as found.
The 510(k) applicant is Mz Skin itself (London, UK) - unusual in this catalog, where most retail brands trace to a separate OEM. Everyone else tied to this device or its own cited predicate goes by some version of “I-SMART” instead, spelled four different ways - see the FAQ below for all four. One of those four, I-SMART Development LTD. (registration number 3013481783), is the Registration & Listing establishment whose own entry pairs both product codes - “Over-The-Counter Powered Light Based Laser For Acne” (OLP) and “Light Based Over The Counter Wrinkle Reduction” (OHS) - directly with this device’s name. That pairing is the establishment’s own self-declaration in a federal database, not an FDA-verified fact; it corroborates the filing’s own indications-for-use text without adding independent weight to it. Checked Aug 18, 2026; see our full clearance check for the searches run across all 13 devices in this catalog.
If a documented, device-named FDA indications statement matters more to you than a single clean instruction for how often to use it, MZ Skin LightMax 2.0 is worth the tradeoff - read the Anti-Ageing frequency conflict in the FAQ below before you settle on a schedule.
Check Current Price on Amazon → (paid link)
Its own 510(k) filing says so, by name. K213184, section 5.2 (Indications for Use): "The MZ Skin LightMAX Supercharged LED Mask 2.0 is an over-the-counter device intended to emit energy in the red and blue region of the light spectrum, specifically indicated to treat mild to moderate acne vulgaris of the face." The same section separately states the red+NIR mode is indicated for full-face wrinkles. This device's indication text is taken from the filing itself - downloaded and read directly, not just the search-results page. Shark CryoGlow also has quoted indication text, but it's sourced from GUDID's summary field, not its own filing; the remaining eleven devices in this catalog have no indication text captured from either source yet. See our full clearance check for what each one's record actually shows.
Depends which of the manufacturer's own sources you read. The FDA filing (K213184, section 5.4) states the protocol as filed: 5x weekly for 6 weeks. mzskin.com currently states 3-5x weekly for a minimum of 4 weeks. A self-assessment trial the brand cites on the same site (21 women, results reported at 2 months) ran once-daily. We're not picking one - three numbers, one brand, not reconciled. The Anti-Blemish (acne) schedule doesn't have this problem: the filing and the current site both say 4x weekly for 6 weeks.
Not a single clean answer. The 510(k) applicant of record is Mz Skin (London, UK) - the retail brand itself, unusual in this catalog. Everyone else connected to the filing goes by some version of "I-SMART" instead, spelled four different ways: iSMART Developments Ltd (the correspondent on this same 510(k) filing), I-SMART DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (the GUDID labeler), I-SMART Development LTD. (the Registration & Listing establishment), and Ismart Marketing Svcs, Ltd. (applicant of record for faceLITE, K191629 - one of the two predicate devices this filing itself cites, and the same clearance our Omnilux Contour Face review traces back to). We're not resolving which entity is "really" behind the device - the records don't agree, so we're not picking a side.
Two numbers, both from the same FDA filing. K213184's device-description section (5.1) states 412.5nm ± 7.5nm. That same filing's own comparison table (section 5.4) states 415nm ± 10nm - as does mzskin.com and our own catalog listing. Not a manufacturer-vs-filing gap; the filing disagrees with itself. We're showing both rather than rounding to one.
We can't verify it as worded. The support behind it, per mzskin.com, is a self-assessment trial: 21 women, once-daily use, results self-reported at 2 months - not an instrument-measured, independently published, or peer-reviewed study. "Proven" is the manufacturer's word for that trial, not ours; we're reporting what the trial was, not endorsing the label attached to it.