TY - JOUR
T1 - A split-face comparison of a fractional microneedle radiofrequency device and fractional carbon dioxide laser therapy in acne patients
AU - Shin, Jung U.
AU - Lee, Soo Hyun
AU - Jung, Jin Young
AU - Lee, Ju Hee
PY - 2012/10
Y1 - 2012/10
N2 - Background: A number of lasers and light-based devices have been reported as promising treatment options for acne vulgaris. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) device treatment compared to CO2 fractional laser system (FS) for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Methods: Twenty healthy subjects underwent full-face treatment for acne vulgaris with CO2 FS and MRF device. For each subject, two passes of CO2 FS with a pulse energy setting of 80 mJ and a density of 100 spots/cm2 were used on one side, and two passes of MRF device with a intensity of 8, density of 25 MTZ/cm2, and a depth of 1.5-2.5 mm were used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and were also photographed. Results: Most of the patients improved based on clinical and photographic assessments 3 months after the treatment. No significant differences in physician-measured parameters, patient ratings, or intraoperative pain ratings were found, although downtime was significantly longer for the CO2 FS treated side. Conclusions: MRF device and CO2 FS can be used for acne vulgaris patients and MRF device is more convenient than CO2 FS because of its short downtime.
AB - Background: A number of lasers and light-based devices have been reported as promising treatment options for acne vulgaris. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) device treatment compared to CO2 fractional laser system (FS) for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Methods: Twenty healthy subjects underwent full-face treatment for acne vulgaris with CO2 FS and MRF device. For each subject, two passes of CO2 FS with a pulse energy setting of 80 mJ and a density of 100 spots/cm2 were used on one side, and two passes of MRF device with a intensity of 8, density of 25 MTZ/cm2, and a depth of 1.5-2.5 mm were used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and were also photographed. Results: Most of the patients improved based on clinical and photographic assessments 3 months after the treatment. No significant differences in physician-measured parameters, patient ratings, or intraoperative pain ratings were found, although downtime was significantly longer for the CO2 FS treated side. Conclusions: MRF device and CO2 FS can be used for acne vulgaris patients and MRF device is more convenient than CO2 FS because of its short downtime.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866844942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866844942&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3109/14764172.2012.720023
DO - 10.3109/14764172.2012.720023
M3 - Article
C2 - 23016530
AN - SCOPUS:84866844942
SN - 1476-4172
VL - 14
SP - 212
EP - 217
JO - Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy
JF - Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy
IS - 5
ER -