Ablative versus non-ablative treatment of perioral rhytides. A randomized controlled trial with long-term blinded clinical evaluations and non-invasive measurements
✍ Scribed by L. Hedelund; P. Bjerring; H. Egekvist; M. Haedersdal
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2006
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 190 KB
- Volume
- 38
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0196-8092
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Background and Objective
To compare efficacy and side effects of CO~2~ laser resurfacing and intense pulsed light (IPL) rejuvenation for treatment of perioral rhytides.
Methods
Twenty‐seven female subjects with perioral rhytides (class I–III) were randomly treated with either CO~2~ laser or IPL (three monthly treatments). Efficacy was evaluated by patient self‐assessments and blinded photographs up to 12 months postoperatively. Side effects were assessed clinically. Non‐invasive measurements included: trans epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin reflectance, skin elasticity, and ultrasound.
Results
CO~2~ laser resurfacing resulted in higher degrees of patient satisfaction and clinical rhytide reduction compared to IPL rejuvenation up to 12 months postoperatively (patient evaluations, P < 0.05) (observer evaluations, P < 0.008). Laser‐induced side effects included erythema, dyspigmentation, and milia whereas no side effects were observed after IPL rejuvenation. Non‐invasive measurements showed a significant higher reduction of the subepidermal low‐echogenic band in CO~2~ laser treated areas versus IPL treated areas (12 months postoperatively, P < 0.001). Skin elasticity (expressed as Young's modulus) increased in both groups (P = ns). One month postoperatively a significant increase in TEWL values (P < 0.009) and skin redness% (P < 0.02) was found in CO~2~ laser treated patients versus IPL treated patients. No significant differences were seen in skin pigmentation% during the observation period.
Conclusion
CO~2~ laser resurfacing induces a significantly higher degree of clinical rhytide reduction followed by considerably more side effects compared to IPL rejuvenation in a homogeneous group of patients. Lasers Surg. Med. 38:129–136, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.