Intelligent anti-aging skin care based on independent research     
Lose wrinkles, keep your bank account!     
 
Skin Care 101
Skin Care Basics
Skin Protection
Skin Biology
Biology of Aging
Ingredient Guide
Skin & Nutrition
Skin Conditions
 
Anti-Aging Treatments
Topical Actives
Wrinkle Fillers
Noninvasive
Invasive
 
Skin Care Smarts
Smart Choices
Best Practices
Find Good Skin Doc
Quick Tips
Freebie Finder
 
Reviews & Research
Product Reviews
Provider Reviews
Skin Care Research
Clinical Trials
 
How-To Infopacks
Skin Rejuvenation
DIY Skin Care
Skin & Nutrition
Eye Skin Care
Longevity In a Pill
 
Community & Misc
Forums
Polls & Surveys
News and Updates
Search
 
   
You are here: Skin Care Research >

Long-pulsed dye laser versus long-pulsed dye laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial.

Author: Haedersdal M, Togsverd-Bo K, Wiegell SR, Wulf HC

Author affiliation: Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. mhaedersdal@dadlnet.dk

Publication date & source: 2008.03, J Am Acad Dermatol., 58(3):387-94.

Publication type: Comparative Study; Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL)-assisted photodynamic therapy has been suggested to be superior to laser alone for acne vulgaris but no evidence is available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPDL alone versus LPDL in photodynamic therapy with methylaminolevulinic acid (MAL-LPDL) for acne vulgaris. METHODS: Fifteen patients received a series of 3 full-face LPDL treatments and half-face prelaser MAL treatments; the latter being randomly assigned to the left or right side. RESULTS: Inflammatory lesions were reduced more on MAL-LPDL-treated than on LPDL-treated sides (week 4: 70% vs 50%, P = .003; week 12: 80% vs 67%, P = .004). Noninflammatory lesions reduced similarly. Patient satisfaction was slightly greater with MAL-LPDL versus LPDL treatments (scale 0-10: week 4: 7 vs 6, P = .034; week 12: 8 vs 7.5, P = .034). Fluorescence measurements detected photobleaching with MAL-LPDL (35.3%) and LPDL (7.3%) treatments (P < .001). Erythema, edema, and pustular eruptions intensified from MAL incubation. No patients experienced pigment changes or scarring. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was limited. The split-face design in this randomized controlled trial does not allow us to draw conclusions about the efficacy of the LPDL, only about the efficacy of MAL-LPDL compared with LPDL alone. CONCLUSIONS: MAL-LPDL is slightly superior to LPDL for the treatment of inflammatory acne.



Indexes of Skin Care Research Abstracts
by Subject Category Most Recent


Google
 
Web SmartSkinCare.com

Home | About Us | Contact Us | Ask a Question | Resources

Copyright © 1999-2009 by Dr. G. Todorov / SmartSkinCare.com
Site Disclaimer | Copyright Certification

   
-- advertisements --