Efficacy and safety of 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser versus long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in treating enlarged facial pores.
Enlarged facial pores
Long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser
Non-ablative fractional laser
Journal
Lasers in medical science
ISSN: 1435-604X
Titre abrégé: Lasers Med Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
12
05
2022
accepted:
26
07
2022
pubmed:
16
8
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
15
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Facial pores are visible openings of pilosebaceous follicles, and they are one of the major factors influencing facial skin appearance. This article aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) and long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser (LPNY) in treating enlarged facial pores. All subjects were treated with NAFL on their left faces and LPNY on their right. Five treatments were administered at 2-week intervals, with one follow-up session 2 months after the final treatment. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by subjective (pore improvement and subject satisfaction ratings) assessments and objective (pore number) assessments. At each appointment, any side effects or complications were recorded to evaluate the safety of the two lasers. A total of 18 individuals participated in this study. At the 2-month follow-up, NAFL and LPNY sides had significant reduction in pores (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of pore reductions on either side (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in pore improvement ratings and satisfaction ratings between the two sides (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). Both lasers showed minimal side effects. Both lasers effectively treated enlarged facial pores and were well tolerated. The side effects of the 1064-nm LPNY were less severe than those of the 1565-nm NAFL. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360043.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35971017
doi: 10.1007/s10103-022-03622-z
pii: 10.1007/s10103-022-03622-z
pmc: PMC9525434
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05360043']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3279-3284Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lasers Med Sci. 2018 Feb;33(2):393-397
pubmed: 29256058
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2006 Apr;8(1):17-22
pubmed: 16581680
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Jul;25(7):811-8
pubmed: 21054563
Arch Dermatol. 2004 Nov;140(11):1373-6
pubmed: 15545547
Dermatol Surg. 2000 Jul;26(7):649-52
pubmed: 10886272
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Oct;44(10):1311-1316
pubmed: 29746426
J Dermatolog Treat. 2009;20(4):223-8
pubmed: 19125363
Lasers Surg Med. 2003;33(2):126-31
pubmed: 12913885
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Apr;178(4):e271-e272
pubmed: 29192959
J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Nov 1;15(11):1335-1342
pubmed: 28095544
Clin Dermatol. 2017 Mar - Apr;35(2):168-172
pubmed: 28274354
Skin Res Technol. 2011 Nov;17(4):427-33
pubmed: 21342294
Dermatol Surg. 2013 Mar;39(3 Pt 1):443-8
pubmed: 23293895
Arch Dermatol. 2002 Nov;138(11):1486-93
pubmed: 12437455
Dermatol Surg. 2016 Mar;42(3):277-85
pubmed: 26918966
Lasers Surg Med. 2003;32(2):120-8
pubmed: 12561045
Lasers Med Sci. 2018 Feb;33(2):241-250
pubmed: 29080008
Int J Dermatol. 2015 Sep;54(9):e345-50
pubmed: 25515708
Laser Ther. 2011;20(3):175-80
pubmed: 24155526
Dermatology. 2005;210(1):3-7
pubmed: 15604536
Dermatol Surg. 2010 Nov;36(11):1672-80
pubmed: 20961349
J Dermatol. 2012 May;39(5):425-9
pubmed: 22220934
Exp Dermatol. 2005 Dec;14(12):876-82
pubmed: 16274454