4.5 Article

A randomized investigator-blind trial of different passes of microdermabrasion therapy and their effects on skin biophysical characteristics

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 508-513

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2008.03583.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Microdermabrasion (MDA) is a safe, simple, and beneficial technique for superficial skin resurfacing. Despite its popular usage, few studies have assessed the efficacy of different MDA protocols applied at the present time. Objectives To assess the effects of MDA generally, as well as to compare the effects of two vs. three passes of MDA in each session for a total number of six therapeutic sessions on skin biophysical characteristics. Methods In this randomized, investigator-blind, split-face study, 10 patients underwent a series of six MDA treatments with an interval of 2 weeks. One side of the face was treated with two passes of MDA and the other side was treated with three passes, randomly. Stratum corneum hydration, sebum secretion, and skin pH measurements were obtained before and after the procedure on all sessions and also 1 and 4 weeks after the last treatment. Results After six sessions of MDA, a decrease in sebum content compared to baseline was shown at the end of treatment sessions, but no statistical difference was observed between two vs. three passes groups (-30.0 [interquartile range, IQR = 50.0] vs. -27.5 [IQR = 125.3], respectively, P = 0.58). Comparison of two treatment groups showed significant higher values of sebum content in the first follow-up after treatment with three passes of MDA. (64.0 [IQR = 52.0] for three passes vs. 45.0 [IQR = 46.0] for two passes, P = 0.04) A significant increase was observed in pH values at the end of treatment series, first and second follow-up after treatment with two passes of MDA. Conclusions MDA may have remarkable effects on skin barrier function changes resulting in skin clinical improvements (Cochrane Skin Group identifier: CSG No. 37).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据