4.0 Article

Histologic Evidence of New Collagen Formulation Using Platelet Rich Plasma in Skin Rejuvenation: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Study

期刊

ANNALS OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 718-724

出版社

KOREAN DERMATOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.5021/ad.2016.28.6.718

关键词

Collagen; Mesotherapy; Platelet-rich plasma; Skin needling; Skin rejuvenation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous concentration of human platelets contained in a small volume of plasma and has recently been shown to accelerate rejuvenate aging skin by various growth factors and cell adhesion molecules. Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intradermal injection of PRP in the human facial rejuvenation. Methods: This study was a prospective, single-center, single-dose, open-label, non- randomized controlled clinical study. PRP injected to the upper site of this right infra-auricular area and all face. Saline was injected to the left infra-auricular area. Histopathological examinations were performed before PRP treatment, 28 days after the PRP, and saline (control) treatments. Results: Twenty women ranging in age from 40 to 49 years (mean age, 43.65 +/- 2.43 years) were enrolled in the study. The mean optical densities (MODs) of collagen in the pre-treatment, control, and PRP-treated area were measured. They were 539 +/- 93.2, 787 +/- 134.15, 1,019 +/- 178, respectively. In the MOD of PRP, 89.05 percent improvement was found when MOD of PRP was compared with MOD of pre-treatment. The mean MOD of collagen fibers was clearly highest on the PRP side (p < 0.001). The PRP-to-saline improvement ratio (89.05% to 46.01%) was 1.93:1. No serious side effects were detected. Conclusion: PRP increases dermal collagen levels not only by growth factors, but also by skin needling (the mesotherapy technique 'point by point'). PRP application could be considered as an effective (even a single application) and safety procedure for facial skin rejuvenation.

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

4.0
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