4.6 Article

Prospective, randomized, double-blind assessment of topical bakuchiol and retinol for facial photoageing

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 180, Issue 2, Pages 289-296

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.16918

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Dermatology, University of California - Davis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Bakuchiol is a phytochemical that has demonstrated cutaneous antiageing effects when applied topically. Early studies have suggested that bakuchiol is a functional analogue of topical retinoids, as both compounds have been shown to induce similar gene expression in the skin and lead to improvement of cutaneous photodamage. No in vivo studies have compared the two compounds for efficacy and side-effects. Objectives To compare the clinical efficacy and side-effect profiles of bakuchiol and retinol in improving common signs of cutaneous facial ageing. Methods This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study in which 44 patients were asked to apply either bakuchiol 0 center dot 5% cream twice daily or retinol 0 center dot 5% cream daily. A facial photograph and analytical system was used to obtain and analyse high-resolution photographs of patients at 0, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Patients also completed tolerability assessment questions to review side-effects. During study visits, a board-certified dermatologist, blinded to study group assignments, graded pigmentation and redness. Results Bakuchiol and retinol both significantly decreased wrinkle surface area and hyperpigmentation, with no statistical difference between the compounds. The retinol users reported more facial skin scaling and stinging. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that bakuchiol is comparable with retinol in its ability to improve photoageing and is better tolerated than retinol. Bakuchiol is promising as a more tolerable alternative to retinol.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available