Conch Piercing: Inner, Outer, and the Punch Question

The short answerA conch piercing goes through the cartilage in the bowl of the ear. Two things about it are routinely got wrong. The first is the name. Inner conch and outer conch are studio terms, not anatomy, and we found four mutually incompatible definitions of outer conch. The real anatomical division is the cymba and the cavum conchae, and no source we read maps the popular terms onto it. The second is the technique. Some conch piercings are made with a dermal punch, which removes a core of cartilage instead of displacing it, and no two regulators we read agree on whether a piercer may lawfully use one. Nevada's regulations call it a medical or surgical procedure. New Jersey's health department knows of no restriction on it.

What the conch is, and what the anatomy names

The conch is the bowl of the ear, the hollow between the ear canal and the folded outer rim. A conch piercing crosses the cartilage that forms it.

Anatomy divides that bowl in two. Radiopaedia, a peer-reviewed radiology reference, names the upper part the cymba conchae and the lower part the cavum conchae. It describes the cavum conchae as the deepest depression in the auricle, lying below the crus of the helix. The cymba conchae it describes as the depression bounded by the crus of the helix below and the inferior crus of the antihelix above.

One point of precision matters, because the popular version overstates its source. Radiopaedia uses the crus of the helix as a boundary marker. It does not state that the crus divides the concha.

That is the whole of the published anatomy, and it is more than the industry's own documents contain. The word conch does not appear in the Association of Professional Piercers' 2013 Procedure Manual, the document Oregon adopts as its legal standard of care. It is absent from the trade body's public FAQ, and from Meltzer's review of body piercing complications in American Family Physician. Across the licensing material we read, it turns up in one official document: a Scottish implementation guide, as an item in a list of ear sites.

What follows from cartilage rather than from the conch in particular, including the slow healing and the lump people call an irritation bump, is set out in our guide to the helix piercing. This page is about what is specific to the conch, and very little about it has been published at all.

Inner, outer, orbital: naming, not anatomy

Here is the table this article exists for. If you have ever ordered the wrong size for a conch, this is why.

Term What it actually is, anatomically What jewellery it takes Anatomy or studio usage
Concha The bowl of the outer ear. Radiopaedia divides it into the cymba conchae above and the cavum conchae below Not applicable. It is a region of the ear, not a piercing Anatomy
Cymba conchae The upper depression, bounded by the crus of the helix below and the inferior crus of the antihelix above No source we found assigns jewellery to it by name Anatomy
Cavum conchae The deepest depression in the auricle, below the crus of the helix No source we found assigns jewellery to it by name Anatomy
Inner conch No fixed referent. The one medically reviewed source that names cymba and cavum then defines the inner conch separately, as sitting parallel to the fold of cartilage above the ear canal A flat back labret is the usual retailer answer. No authority publishes a length Studio usage
Outer conch Four incompatible definitions found: the upper flatter part also known as the helix (WebMD); closer to the antihelix (Medical News Today); the flat area between the helix rim and the antihelix ridge (Wikipedia); above the depression, and arguably a lower helix piercing (a Vienna studio wiki) Retailers offer a flat back labret or a hoop. The term pins down no size, because it pins down no site Studio usage
Conch orbital Not a site at all. An orbital is defined by its jewellery: two piercings joined by one ring One ring sized to the span between the two holes, which is a measurement taken on your ear Studio usage. No authoritative source defines the term

The conch terms in circulation, what each one refers to, and whether it comes from anatomy or from studio practice. Sources read on 23 October 2026

Read the right-hand column. Two of the three terms used in a studio are not anatomical categories.

The inconsistency is not a matter of degree. Three of those four definitions place the outer conch somewhere that is not the conch. One, from WebMD, names the helix outright. The Wikipedia version puts it where most studios now call the flat, and cites nothing for either definition.

The medically reviewed source that does name the real anatomy does not use it to settle anything. iCliniq states that the conch comprises the upper area, the cymba, and the lower part, the cavum. It then defines the inner conch separately, as sitting parallel to the fold of cartilage above the ear canal. Two different cuts, in two different places, inside one article.

So these terms are naming rather than anatomy, and that is a finding, not a failure. No source we read treats the inner and outer conch as having different healing times, different risk, or different complication profiles. We searched the indexed medical literature, the trade body's manual and FAQ, and Meltzer, and found nothing on the distinction. Neither term appears in any UK or US legislation, licensing guidance or professional standard we located.

The trade is split on whether they are even two services. Six of the seven price lists we read give a single conch price with no split. The only jewellery difference any source states is that fit depends on the piercing's location, angle and ear shape rather than on the label, and that source is a retailer blog.

The orbital, and why it produces the wrong order

The orbital is a different kind of word, and that is the whole problem. Conch names a place. Orbital names a jewellery arrangement: two piercings connected by one piece of jewellery. The available definition is weak, coming from Wikipedia citing a defunct consumer site and a community wiki, but it is the only one there is.

Those two categories do not sit on the same axis. A conch orbital is therefore two holes in the conch area with one ring through both. It needs a ring sized to the span between the holes, not to a single hole, and nobody can publish that size. We found no definition of conch orbital in any peer-reviewed, government, licensing or professional-body source. The term is absent from the trade body's manual and FAQ, from Meltzer, and from every regulation we examined.

If you are buying for a conch orbital, the measurement that matters was taken at your appointment.

The dermal punch, and why it is used on the conch

A dermal punch is a cylindrical blade. It cuts a core out of the tissue and takes that core away, where a needle displaces tissue and leaves it in place. The description in circulation comes from a community encyclopedia, which calls it a sharp, round cookie-cutter for skin.

The instrument itself is not obscure. A New Jersey health department policy statement records that the US Food and Drug Administration classifies dermal punches, scalpels and hemostats together, as manual surgical instruments for general use, Class 1 and exempt from premarket notification. The clearest official description of their purpose comes from a UK regulator. The Scottish licensing working group's implementation guide, approved in May 2026, describes them as surgical instruments used for body modifications and large gauge piercings, normally in the cartilage.

Why the conch, then. The only medically reviewed source we found that links punching to the conch is WebMD, which states that a punch is usually used for outer conch piercings because that part of the ear is flatter than the curved inner conch. No primary source sits behind that sentence. The mechanism claim is weaker still. A community wiki argues that a punch lowers pressure on the injured tissue, and that it reaches a large initial size stretching cannot. That is the central claim made for punching cartilage, and it rests on a community wiki.

We went looking for the study that would settle it. We did not find one. We found no clinical study, no case series and no case report comparing dermal punching with needling in ear cartilage, and none on complications of punching at any site. The comparison every argument about punching assumes has never been published, in either direction.

Two things can be said without overstating them. A retailer page describes a punch as removing a small disc of cartilage rather than piercing it, and as leaving a permanent visible hole. That is a retailer's claim, not a documented outcome. The nearest published work on whether cartilage repairs a defect is animal work: Haberal Can and colleagues, in European Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, reported that traumatised rabbit auricular cartilage with perichondrium undergoes ossification. Six rabbits, and not a piercing study.

Where dermal punching stands in law

This is the part of the subject nobody writes about, and it has the most published material behind it. We read the legislation and the regulators' own documents. They do not agree with each other.

Jurisdiction What the rule or guidance says What that leaves for a piercer
England and Wales, 1982 Act Registration is required for the business of cosmetic piercing. The Act does not define cosmetic piercing; its only interpretation provision defines semi-permanent skin-colouring Unsettled. The statute is silent on technique
England, local-authority toolkit Does not mention dermal punching, scalpelling or flesh removal. It groups beading, branding, scarring and cutting as procedures that do cause actual harm and can be treated as assaults, without saying where punching falls Unsettled. The standard reference for English councils does not address it
Wales, 2017 Act and 2025 conditions Body piercing is defined technique-neutrally, and expressly includes perforation by way of puncture or incision. Licence Condition 1 prohibits using a scalpel. Condition 6 lists a biopsy punch among instruments a licence holder may use, subject to single use and sterility The only UK scheme that names a punch at all lists it among permitted equipment, while expressly banning the scalpel
Scotland, implementation guide Lists dermal punches in its table of procedures and describes them as surgical instruments for large gauge piercings. The column that would say whether a skin-piercing licence covers them is left blank Unstated by the regulator's own table
Nevada Names dermal punching as extreme body modification, considered a medical or surgical procedure, and bars it from an invasive body decoration establishment unless performed by or under the direct supervision of a licensed physician, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse Not available to a piercer
Georgia Prohibits any procedure requiring medical equipment such as scalpels or dermal punches, any procedure permanently removing tissue, and manipulating other items to serve as a scalpel. The rulemaking record states the state medical board's position that a punch may be used only under physician supervision Prohibited outright
New Jersey The state health department knows of no FDA restriction on use for non-medical procedures, and no State Board of Medical Examiners restriction preventing body piercers using dermal punches or scalpels, while advising practitioners to consult their own sources. Punches must be single use Not restricted, on the health department's own reading
Oregon The specialty body-piercing standards do not mention dermal punch, punching, scalpelling, cartilage or large gauge. Oregon instead adopts the Association of Professional Piercers' 2013 Procedure Manual as a standard of care Unaddressed, and the manual it adopts does not mention punches either

What eight jurisdictions actually say about dermal punching, from the legislation and the regulators' own guidance, read on 23 October 2026

Two state regulators read the same federal device classification and reach opposite conclusions. Nevada names dermal punching as extreme body modification, calls it a medical or surgical procedure, and keeps it out of body-art premises. Georgia prohibits it outright, and records its medical board's view that a punch incision is the practice of medicine. New Jersey's health department knows of no restriction preventing a body piercer from using one. Scotland's own guidance lists the instrument, then leaves the column that would say whether a licence covers it blank. England's statute does not define cosmetic piercing at all. There is no settled answer to whether the person punching your conch is permitted to do it. Where you are decides, and in several places nobody has decided.

The trade body's silence is a separate gap. The Association of Professional Piercers does not address punches. Its 2013 Procedure Manual mentions neither punching, nor punches, nor large gauge piercing, and we found no current position statement on its site. Its own journal said as much in 2009: the association had historically declined to address the use of punches, treating them as outside the scope of body piercing. The authors argued that position had become untenable, because in most states punching was clearly not the industry's legal right. That article also named New Jersey and Florida as prohibiting punches, which neither state's current documents bear out.

One further thing deserves flagging, because it sits inside a regulator's own document. The Scottish guide's note on scalpelling reads that a scalpel cuts a slit in the skin, unlike dermal punching where skin is not removed. Read literally, that says a punch removes no tissue, which is the reverse of every technical description of the instrument, including the one in the same table. We report that as ambiguous or erroneous drafting, not as a fact. That table also notes that cutting and scarification could be classed as physical assault. The punch row carries no such note.

In England there is simply nothing to read. We found no English local-authority byelaw or guidance that explicitly permits or prohibits dermal punching. The national toolkit does not mention punching, scalpelling or flesh removal. What it does record is that registration does not apply to practices carried out by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner. Whether punching a conch sits inside a registered piercer's scope in England is an untested question, and we are not going to answer it for you.

Jewellery fit, and why a conch needs more room

Ask who publishes the correct post length for a conch. Nobody does.

The trade body's initial-jewellery standard contains no numbers. It requires only that jewellery be of appropriate length or diameter for your unique anatomy and the placement of the piercing, and warns that ill-fitting jewellery increases the likelihood of swelling and embedding if it is too small. The standard mentions neither cartilage nor the conch. The swelling allowance is qualitative too: most piercings, it says, need a noticeable amount of extra room, while jewellery that is too long can snag and move around excessively. No millimetre figure appears anywhere in it.

Its procedure manual gets closest to something usable. Many types of ear piercing stud, it says, are too short for some earlobes and most cartilage. Jewellery fitting too closely raises infection risk, because it does not allow thorough cleaning. Jewellery too thin in gauge may be treated by the body like a splinter, resulting in migration or rejection. Those are mechanisms, not measurements.

Every actual number for conch post length and hoop diameter that we found comes from a retailer or a studio. One retailer guide gives an 8 mm flat back post as usual, 10 mm for some ears, 16 gauge as standard, and a 10 to 12 mm hoop diameter. One retailer size chart gives a healed conch a 7 or 8 mm bar and a 10 or 12 mm hoop, against 6 or 7 mm and 8 or 10 mm for a helix on the same chart. The diameter, it adds, should clear the outer ear without pressing on it.

That is the evidence for the longer-post claim: two retailer charts. It is not a standard and we will not call it one. Our guide to flat back post length works through judging fit on your own ear, which is what the trade body's standard asks of you.

The reason usually given for the longer post does not survive a look. We found no published measurement comparing conchal with helix cartilage thickness in a piercing context, and no source linking any thickness figure to a post length. The sentence you have read, that a conch needs a longer bar because the cartilage is thicker there, is an explanation nobody has measured. The fit requirement may be real. The stated reason for it is not sourced.

Downsizing sits in the same place. The chart that gives the numbers also says the bar fitted at the appointment is deliberately longer, and is not a sizing reference. Two months to the check-up is that studio's policy, not a finding.

Pressure, embedding and migration

The conch sits exactly where the cup of an over-ear headphone lands, and where the arm of a pair of glasses passes. Every studio page warns about it. We looked for the evidence, and there is none.

We found no published evidence that external pressure from over-ear headphones, glasses, helmets or sleeping delays healing of a cartilage piercing. No study, no case report, no case series, no guidance document. None that it causes hypertrophic scarring at a piercing site, and none that it embeds jewellery in cartilage. Every result was a studio or retailer page.

The medically reviewed sources are weaker on this than the studios are, which is the opposite of what you would expect. WebMD answers that you can use earphones depending on where the piercing is, and that you should keep them clean. That is a hygiene point, not a pressure point. iCliniq mentions headphones only among items to clean, and never uses the word pressure in a healing context. Medical News Today does not mention headphones at all.

Then there is the awkward part, which is that the scar literature points the other way. Compression is used as a treatment for keloids. Tahir and colleagues, in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, reviewed 27 studies of compression after keloid excision. The combination of a compression earring and silicone gel sheeting had the lowest recurrence, with no statistically significant difference between groups, and the authors concluded the evidence is insufficient. A purpose-made compression earring is a keloid treatment. The studio claim is that pressure on the ear causes bumps.

What the scar literature does implicate is tension, which is a different force. Sheckley and colleagues, in Plastic and Aesthetic Research, report that prolonged mechanical tension can dysregulate mechanotransductive signalling, and that keloids frequently occur in regions of elevated cutaneous tension. That review never mentions the ear or the auricle. The sites it names are the sternum, shoulders, upper back, chest and joints, and it does not discuss compression at all. Tension at the trunk, compression at the ear, and a healing cartilage piercing are three separate things.

The nearest published pressure finding concerns a different structure. Meltzer notes that pointed earring posts may cause pressure sores or postauricular skin irritation. That is the skin behind the ear, caused by the post.

Embedding, and a misattribution worth correcting

Embedded jewellery is real and it is documented. It is documented in the earlobe.

Every embedding mechanism Meltzer describes is earlobe or nasal. Earrings can become embedded in the earlobe, a complication he calls common in people with thick, fleshy earlobes, and longer posts with adjustable backings may prevent it. For nasal jewellery, studs or backings may require surgical removal. That paper does not describe embedding in ear cartilage, and it does not mention the conch. The surgical-removal sentence that circulates as a cartilage warning is about the lobe and the nostril.

We found no published case of jewellery embedding in the conch, and none of migration or rejection of conch jewellery. Meltzer describes navel piercings migrating to the surface and nostril rings migrating forward, compounded by heavily weighted, thin-gauge jewellery. He describes no cartilage migration. His finding on weight, that heavy jewellery may produce an elongated tract or a bifid deformity, is about the earlobe.

Healing time, and the figure nobody publishes

You have been told six to twelve months. We went to find who published that figure.

Source What it is Conch or cartilage figure published
APP Procedure Manual, 2013 The trade body's own manual, adopted by Oregon as a standard of care The word conch does not appear. It explains only that cartilage has less blood supply than earlobe tissue and a correspondingly longer healing time
APP piercing FAQ The trade body's public consumer guidance No conch figure. One generic line, inside an answer about genital piercings: tougher tissue such as ear cartilage, navels and nostrils may take six months or longer
Meltzer, Am Fam Physician, 2005 Peer-reviewed clinical review with a healing-time table Ear lobe and auricle, 6 to 8 weeks, as one combined row. No separate cartilage row, and no mention of the conch
Kent code of practice A UK local-authority code, reproducing a table it attributes to a trade union Ear, cartilaginous region, and nostril, 2 months to 1 year. The document itself says healing times are difficult to estimate
Welsh licence guidance, English toolkit The UK licensing and local-authority documents None. Neither document mentions the conch
Medically reviewed consumer sites WebMD, Medical News Today, iCliniq Three different answers: 4 months to a year; 4 to 12 months; and 6 to 9 months in one passage against 4 to 12 months in another, inside the same article
Retailer and studio pages A jewellery retailer blog, and a Vienna studio wiki 6 to 12 months, uncited; and 3 to 8 months

What seven kinds of source publish for conch or cartilage healing, read on 23 October 2026

No named authority publishes a conch-specific healing figure. That is the finding. We checked the trade body's procedure manual and FAQ, Meltzer, the Kent code of practice, the Welsh Government's licensing guidance and the English local-authority toolkit. The conch is absent from all of them.

What circulates instead is five ranges from five sources, none tracing to a measurement. Four months to a year, from WebMD. Four to twelve months, from Medical News Today. Six to nine months in one passage and four to twelve in another, inside the same iCliniq article. Six to twelve months from a retailer, uncited. Three to eight months from a studio wiki.

The only peer-reviewed figure for the ear is shorter than all of them, and it is odd. Meltzer's table gives ear lobe and auricle six to eight weeks as a single combined row, while the text of the same review says cartilage heals poorly because auricular cartilage is avascular. The one numeric range in UK official guidance is two months to one year for the cartilaginous region of the ear, in a table a local-authority code attributes to a trade union.

Studios work to roughly six to twelve months for a conch, and that is convention rather than a documented finding. We use the word convention deliberately, because no authority publishes a figure to check it against. And nothing we found states that the conch heals differently from the helix, from the flat, or from cartilage generally.

What a conch costs

We read seven studio price lists on 23 October 2026, four UK and three US. The spread is narrow. What varies is what the fee includes.

In the UK the piercing fee ran from £20 to £40. House of Iris in London charges a £20 fee, with titanium jewellery from £10 or solid 14 carat gold from £49, listed separately. LBL Tattoo in Islington lists £29 with the jewellery included. Brown Coat Studio lists £35 for a conch and £30 for an outer conch, titanium included. London Piercing Clinic lists from £40 and says nothing about whether jewellery is included.

In the US the service fee ran from $35 to $50, with jewellery extra every time. Piercology in Columbus lists $35 and states that service fees do not include jewellery. Somatic Body Piercing lists a $50 fee with starting jewellery from $44, which it totals at $94. So Gold Studios in New York lists a $50 fee excluding jewellery, with gold ends from $100 without stones and from $180 with them.

Two things follow. Only one of the seven prices an inner and an outer conch differently, which is the trade's own answer to the naming question. And the figures in medically reviewed consumer articles do not match: Medical News Today gives $30 to $90 and labels its own range anecdotal, while WebMD gives $75 to over $100. Seven price lists read on one day is not a market survey.

Shop the pieces

Titanium conch jewellery

Implant-grade ASTM F136 titanium flat back labrets and hinged clickers in the longer bar lengths and larger hoop diameters a conch normally takes. Nickel-free by specification, which is the claim the evidence actually supports.

Shop titanium conch jewellery →

Common questions

What is the difference between an inner and an outer conch piercing?
The names, and not much else that anyone has published. The anatomy divides the bowl of the ear into the cymba conchae above and the cavum conchae below, and no source we read maps inner and outer conch onto that division. We found four definitions of outer conch that cannot all be true at once, placing it at the helix, near the antihelix, in the flat, and above the depression. No source treats the two as having different healing times, different risk or different jewellery requirements. Six of the seven studio price lists we read charge one conch price.
Is a conch orbital a conch piercing?
It is a jewellery arrangement rather than a site, which is why the term confuses orders. An orbital is two piercings joined by one piece of jewellery, on the only definition available, which comes from Wikipedia citing a defunct consumer site and a community wiki. We found no definition of conch orbital in any peer-reviewed, government, licensing or professional-body source. A ring for one has to match the span between your two holes, so the measurement you need was taken at your appointment.
What is a dermal punch, and why is it used on the conch?
It is a cylindrical blade that cuts a core out of the tissue and removes it, where a needle displaces tissue and leaves it in place. A US state health department records that the Food and Drug Administration classifies dermal punches with scalpels and hemostats, as manual surgical instruments for general use. A Scottish regulator describes them as surgical instruments used for large gauge piercings in cartilage. The only medically reviewed source linking punching to the conch is WebMD, which says it is usually used on the outer conch because that part of the ear is flatter.
Is dermal punching legal in the UK?
There is no single answer, and the gap is the finding. The 1982 Act covering England and Wales requires registration for the business of cosmetic piercing and never defines what piercing is. The national guidance toolkit for English councils does not mention punching at all, and we found no English byelaw that permits or prohibits it. Scotland's regulator lists dermal punches in its table of procedures and leaves the column that would say whether a licence covers them blank. Wales is the only UK scheme that names a punch: its licence conditions ban the scalpel and list a biopsy punch among permitted instruments.
Is dermal punching legal in the United States?
It depends entirely on the state, and the regulators contradict one another. Nevada names dermal punching as extreme body modification, calls it a medical or surgical procedure, and bars it from body-art premises unless a physician or equivalent performs or directly supervises it. Georgia prohibits any procedure requiring scalpels or dermal punches outright. New Jersey's health department says it knows of no restriction preventing body piercers using them. Oregon's piercing standards do not mention punches, and neither does the trade-body manual Oregon adopts as its standard of care.
Does a punched conch hole ever close?
No clinical literature answers this. We found no study, case series or case report on dermal punching in ear cartilage, and none on its complications at any site. A retailer page states that a punch removes a small disc of cartilage and leaves a permanent visible hole, which is a retailer's claim rather than a documented outcome. The nearest published work is an animal study in rabbit auricular cartilage, which reported that traumatised cartilage with perichondrium undergoes ossification and crushed cartilage was usually absorbed or replaced by bony plates. Six rabbits, and not a piercing study.
What size bar or hoop does a conch take?
No authority publishes a number. The trade body's initial-jewellery standard asks only that jewellery suit your anatomy and placement, warns that ill-fitting jewellery raises the likelihood of swelling and embedding if too small, and gives no millimetre figure anywhere. Every figure we found comes from a retailer or studio: an 8 mm flat back post as usual with 10 mm for some ears, 16 gauge, and a 10 to 12 mm hoop diameter; and one size chart giving a healed conch a 7 or 8 mm bar against 6 or 7 mm for a helix. Two retailer charts is what the longer-post claim rests on.
Can I wear over-ear headphones while a conch heals?
We found no published evidence either way. No study, case report, case series or guidance document establishes that pressure from headphones, glasses, helmets or sleeping delays healing of a cartilage piercing, or causes scarring or embedding. The medically reviewed sources are weaker on this than the studios: WebMD's answer is about keeping earphones clean, which is a hygiene point. Oddly, the scar literature points the other way, since compression is used as a keloid treatment, and what it implicates is tension, at the trunk and joints rather than the ear.
How long does a conch piercing take to heal?
No named authority publishes a conch-specific figure, and that absence is the finding. We checked the trade body's procedure manual and FAQ, Meltzer's clinical review, the Kent code of practice, the Welsh licensing guidance and the English local-authority toolkit, and the conch appears in none of them. Five consumer and retailer sources give five different ranges, one of them contradicting itself on the same page. The only peer-reviewed figure for the ear is six to eight weeks for ear lobe and auricle combined. Studios work to roughly six to twelve months, which is convention rather than a documented finding.
What does a conch piercing cost?
Across seven price lists read on 23 October 2026, the UK piercing fee ran from £20 to £40 and the US service fee from $35 to $50. Two of the four UK studios included basic titanium jewellery in the price. All three US studios charged jewellery separately, starting at $44 and reaching $180 and above for gold with stones. One studio priced an outer conch £5 below a conch. Figures in medically reviewed consumer articles did not match: one gives $30 to $90 and labels its own range anecdotal, the other $75 to over $100.
Sources
Keep reading Every ear placement Hoop diameter by placement Flat back post length Piercing healing times Piercers and UK law Conch studs and hoops

Legislation, regulators' guidance, studies and trade-body pages cited here were read on 23 October 2026, and studio price lists on the same date. Belora sells jewellery and does not provide medical or legal advice. Nothing on this page is a treatment recommendation, a diagnosis, or a statement of what is lawful where you live. If a piercing is hot, swollen, spreading, producing coloured pus, or if you feel unwell, seek medical help promptly. If you are considering a dermal punch, ask the studio what its local authority or state regulator permits, and check that answer yourself.