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 intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: a randomized split-face trial with blinded response evaluation.

Author: Jorgensen GF, Hedelund L, Haedersdal M

Author affiliation: Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Publication date & source: 2008.07, Lasers Surg Med., 40(5):293-9.

Publication type: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

OBJECTIVE: In a randomized controlled split-face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, classes I-II rhytids, and symmetrical split-face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3-week intervals with half-face LPDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half-face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end-points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end-points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and by blinded clinical on-site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on-site evaluations. RESULTS: Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side-to-side evaluations, patient self-assessments, P<or=0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side-to-side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL- or IPL-treated sides. Treatment-related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7-8) than LPDL (4.75-5.5) treatments (P<0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL- to IPL treatments (P<or=0.031). CONCLUSION: This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain.



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 --