Explore the vast range of titles available.

Skin aging and photoaging is a process that may appear at a relatively early age, causing an aesthetic problem. Common signs of skin aging include wrinkles, dyspigmentation, and decreased elasticity. Aim of this article is to study the effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for skin rejuvenation. Thirty Syrian female patients aged 25-50 participated in this study and were diagnosed with moderate to severe melasma and wrinkles. The patients were divided into two groups and received LLLT with a wavelength of 660 nm emitting a continuous wave. The power density and dose used were 15.6 mW/cm , and 3 J/cm respectively, and the laser effective area was 32 cm . The evaluation was done before, during, and after 12 treatment sessions, based on photographs, in addition to the modified Melasma Area Severity Index (MASI), Pinch test, and Fitzpatrick's classification of facial wrinkling at baseline. Comparing before, and after treatment, and between the two groups, revealed a significant improvement in skin rejuvenation, with a statistical significance (p < 0.05). Additional outcome measures included assessments of patient satisfaction scores, and no adverse effects or re-pigmentation were reported. Our results suggest that LLLT may be a useful and safe therapeutic option in treating melasma, skin elasticity, and wrinkle improvement, which we advised to be integrated into treatment, and follow-up programs in cosmetics and dermatology.

Previous clinical studies have shown that pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL) are effective for treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea(ETR). This article aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL and IPL at three different wavelength bands (broad-band, single-narrow-band, and dual-narrow-band) in treating ETR. Sixty subjects with ETR were randomly categorized into four groups and received one of the following laser treatments: PDL (595 nm), IPL with Delicate Pulse Light (DPL, 500–600 nm), IPL with M22 590 (590–1200 nm), or IPL with M22 vascular filter (530–650 nm and 900–1200 nm). Four treatment sessions were administered at 4-week intervals, with one follow-up session 4 weeks after the final treatment. The efficacy of the four lasers was evaluated by comparing the clinical symptom score, total effective rate, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score before and after treatment. The safety was evaluated by comparing adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, and blister. All 60 subjects completed the study. Within-group effects showed that the clinical symptom score, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score of all four groups were significantly reduced compared to before treatment (p < 0.001). Between-group effects showed no statistically significant difference among the four laser groups. Safety analysis showed that all four lasers were safe, but the incidence of blister was higher in the M22 vascular group. Nonpurpurogenic PDL, DPL, M22 590, and M22 vascular were equally effective in treating ETR and were well-tolerated. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360251.

Purpose There is a large body of evidence supporting the efficacy of low level laser therapy (LLLT), more recently termed photobiomodulation (PBM), for the management of oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). Recent advances in PBM technology, together with a better understanding of mechanisms involved, may expand the applications for PBM in the management of other complications associated with HNC treatment. This article (part 1) describes PBM mechanisms of action, dosimetry, and safety aspects and, in doing so, provides a basis for a companion paper (part 2) which describes the potential breadth of potential applications of PBM in the management of side-effects of (chemo)radiation therapy in patients being treated for HNC and proposes PBM parameters. Methods This study is a narrative non-systematic review. Results We review PBM mechanisms of action and dosimetric considerations. Virtually, all conditions modulated by PBM (e.g., ulceration, inflammation, lymphedema, pain, fibrosis, neurological and muscular injury) are thought to be involved in the pathogenesis of (chemo)radiation therapy-induced complications in patients treated for HNC. The impact of PBM on tumor behavior and tumor response to treatment has been insufficiently studied. In vitro studies assessing the effect of PBM on tumor cells report conflicting results, perhaps attributable to inconsistencies of PBM power and dose. Nonetheless, the biological bases for the broad clinical activities ascribed to PBM have also been noted to be similar to those activities and pathways associated with negative tumor behaviors and impeded response to treatment. While there are no anecdotal descriptions of poor tumor outcomes in patients treated with PBM, confirming its neutrality with respect to cancer responsiveness is a critical priority. Conclusion Based on its therapeutic effects, PBM may have utility in a broad range of oral, oropharyngeal, facial, and neck complications of HNC treatment. Although evidence suggests that PBM using LLLT is safe in HNC patients, more research is imperative and vigilance remains warranted to detect any potential adverse effects of PBM on cancer treatment outcomes and survival.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of picosecond laser therapy combined with the Shumin Star in treating melasma and to explore the role of skin barrier function indicators in the assessment of this treatment process. Ninety patients with melasma were randomly divided into a study group and a control group. The study group received picosecond laser therapy combined with the Shumin Star, while the control group received only picosecond laser therapy. The clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of both groups were compared. Changes in skin barrier function before and after treatment were observed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the predictive value of skin barrier function for treatment outcomes. The clinical efficacy of the study group was significantly superior to that of the control group (95.56% versus 82.22%, P  = 0.044). After 3 months of treatment, the study group showed significant improvements of skin barrier function in TEWL, stratum corneum hydration, and sebum content, with a significantly lower MASI total score compared to the control group. During the treatment course, the incidence of adverse reactions in the study group was lower than that in the control group. Picosecond laser therapy combined with the Shumin Star is effective in treating melasma. Skin barrier function can be used to assess the clinical efficacy of this treatment, providing valuable reference values for clinical application and promotion.

Background Previous studies have proven that 308-nm light-emitting diode(308-nm LED)and 308-nm excimer lamp(308-nm MEL) are effective in treating vitiligo, but there is a lack of comparison of their efficacy for facial lesions. Objective To evaluate and contrast the treatment success rates of 308-nm LED versus 308-nm excimer lamp in managing facial lesions among patients suffering from stable non-segmental vitiligo. Methods The enrolled 119 patients with 145 lesions were randomly assigned to receive 308-nm LED or 308-nm MEL for two months. Two independent investigators graded repigmentation at the end of the 2-month treatment period. Results There were 76 lesions in the 308-nm LED group and 69 in the 308-nm MEL group. After 1 month, the average repigmentation grade of the 308-nm LED group was 1.34, with an efficacy rate of 11.84%, and the average repigmentation grade of the 308-nm MEL group was 1.17, with an efficacy rate of 7.24%.After two months of phototherapy, the average repigmentation grade of the 308-nm LED group was 2.38, and the effective rate was 42.1%. The average repigmentation grade in the 308-nm MEL group was 2.19, and the effective rate was 39.12%. The two light sources had similar effects on facial vitiligo lesions after 1 month and 2 months of treatment( P  =.349, P  =.416), and the incidence of side effects was also comparable between the two groups ( P  =.332). Conclusion The 308-nm LED is as effective and safe as 308-nm MEL in treating stable non-segmental facial vitiligo lesions.

Comparative data regarding the effectiveness of the 1064-nm Nd: YAG picosecond laser with fractional micro-lens array (P-MLA) versus traditional electro-optical synergy (ELOS) for treating post-acne erythema (PAE) are limited. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of P-MLA and ELOS in the treatment of PAE. This prospective, randomized, split-face trial enrolled 20 patients with PAE, primarily of darker skin tones (Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI). Patients were randomly assigned to receive P-MLA treatment on one side of the face, and ELOS treatment on the other side. Three treatments were administered at 4-week intervals, with follow-up conducted at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Standardized photographs were obtained using the VISIA system. Efficacy was assessed based on improvements in PAE lesion counts, clinical erythema assessment, VISIA skin analysis data, and patient-reported satisfaction. Adverse events were recorded. Both the P-MLA and ELOS groups showed significant reductions in erythema, with the P-MLA group demonstrating a notably greater decrease in PAE lesion counts and a higher clinical response rate at week 12 than the ELOS group. VISIA analysis revealed a greater reduction in red zone scores for the P-MLA group, alongside significant improvements in wrinkles and pigmentation. Patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the two groups, with an overall satisfaction rate of 94.74%. Adverse events, including erythema duration, edema, and pain, were similar across both groups, with no serious complications observed. P-MLA demonstrates superior efficacy and lower risk of adverse effects than ELOS in PAE treatment among Asian patients.

Melasma significantly impacts life quality, and while various laser therapies show promise, rigorous comparative studies, especially between the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser (PSAL) and the traditional combined modality of Q-switched and Long-pulse Nd: YAG Lasers (QLNYL), are notably lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the efficacy and safety of these modalities, providing insights into their comparative advantages for clinical practice. In a prospective, evaluator-blinded study, 40 participants with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) III and IV underwent three treatment sessions at four-week intervals with either PSAL or QLNYL. Efficacy was primarily assessed by changes in Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores at baseline, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks, along with patient satisfaction evaluations at the 12- and 24-week marks, and safety assessments conducted throughout the study. Both groups experienced significant reductions in MASI scores post-treatment. Overall, the improvement in MASI scores in the QLNYL group significantly surpassed that in the PSAL group ( P  = 0.010). Patient satisfaction was comparably high between groups, and no significant differences were noted in safety profiles. The PSAL group showed a slightly higher incidence of adverse reactions (not significant) and significantly higher pain scores ( P  = 0.018). Recurrence rates at the 24-week follow-up were 10.5% for PSAL and 0% for QLNYL, with no significant difference. Both PSAL and QLNYL proved effective in treating melasma, with the traditional combined modality of QLNYL demonstrating superior efficacy in FST III-IV. Safety profiles were similar comparable.

Background Pulsed‐dye lasers (PDL) are one of the standard therapies for rosacea, but alternatives are needed. Aims To compare the efficacy and safety of the variable‐sequenced, large‐spot 532 nm KTP laser to the 595 nm PDL in treating rosacea. Materials and Methods A prospective, controlled, evaluator‐blinded study. Patients were treated with either a KTP or PDL with 1–3 sessions at intervals of 6–8 weeks. A follow‐up visit was scheduled on Week 6 post‐treatment. Clinical outcome was assessed by computer‐assisted analysis and by patients and two blinded dermatologists. Pain intensity during treatment and adverse events were documented. Results Forty‐five patients (mean age 51 years) were allocated in a 2:1 ratio to either the KTP or PDL. Erythema in both treatment arms decreased significantly (p < 0.01). Clinical evaluation revealed high improvement. Mean pain intensity was significantly lower with the KTP (2.5/10) than with the PDL (4.1/10). Both lasers showed a good safety profile. Relevant purpura was only seen in the PDL group. Conclusions Both the variable‐sequenced, large‐spot KTP and the PDL demonstrated comparable efficacy in treatment of rosacea. Regarding safety, the KTP exhibited fewer post‐treatment reactions. The KTP might serve as a potential alternative to PDL in the treatment of rosacea.

Background Facial photoaging is a complex biological process influenced by both internal and external factors. It is characterized by wrinkles, enlarged pores, and rough skin. Despite various clinical treatments, they often have limited effectiveness, significant side effects, and extended recovery times. There is a need for more effective and safer treatment options. Preliminary evidence suggests significant differences in mechanisms between fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser (FxPico) and fractional Q‐switched 1064‐nm Nd:YAG laser (QSF‐Nd:YAG). Photothermal tissue modulation is achieved in the QSF‐Nd:YAG platform through holographic beam splitting, whereas the FxPico system's microlens arrays (MLA) enable dual‐mode action through concurrent photothermal and laser‐induced optical breakdown (LIOB) mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to conduct a split‐face controlled trial on the same subject, observing the therapeutic effects of both modalities. Methods Thirty patients with photoaging underwent five treatment sessions at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8. Each patient received FxPico on one side of the face and QSF‐Nd:YAG on the other. Follow‐up evaluations were conducted at 1 and 3 months post‐treatment. Efficacy was assessed using VISIA quantitative analysis, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), and histological examination. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events and patient‐reported pain. Results Among the patients following the completion of five treatment sessions exhibited remarkable improvement in terms of facial wrinkles, pores and skin texture from VISIA quantitative numerical assessment (p < 0.001). Semi‐quantitative assessments from reflectance confocal microscopy analysis also demonstrated a significant decrease (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences observed in the reduction rates of wrinkles, pores, skin texture counts, semi‐quantitative scores, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores (p > 0.05) between the FxPico and QSF‐Nd:YAG sides. Histological analysis revealed increased collagen formation and improved elastic fiber alignment in both treatment groups, which objectively validates the therapeutic efficacy of both laser modalities for photoaging. Adverse events were mild, with FxPico causing more pain (p < 0.0001). Conclusion Both FxPico and QSF‐Nd:YAG lasers are effective and safe for improving photoaging, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes. FxPico may offer superior collagen stimulation, albeit with higher pain levels. Trial Registration China Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200058566

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is the most common form of hair loss characterized by miniaturization of hair follicles. Low-level light therapy (LLLT) and microneedling have shown potential in promoting hair regrowth. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of an innovative light-emitting diode (LED) helmet cooperated with a novel light-guiding microneedle patch (LMNP) for stimulating hair growth in AGA. In this randomized clinical trial, 16 AGA patients received treatments using light-guiding microneedle patches (LMNPs) illuminated by a LED helmet equipped with green (522 nm) and red (633 nm) LEDs, delivering 50 mW/cm2 power and 40 J/cm2 energy. Treatments were applied weekly for 24 weeks, targeting the frontal recession area. The right side of the scalp was treated with green light and the left with red light, each combined with a LMNP featuring 900 µm height needles at a density of 105 per square centimeter. Hair density and diameter, along with patient and physician satisfaction scores, were assessed monthly. Both red and green LED treatments with LMNP, significantly enhanced hair density and diameter. Satisfaction scores, as reported by both physicians and participants, increased over time. Comparative analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in average satisfaction scores or in changes in hair density and diameter between the groups by the end of the study. Additionally, no serious adverse effects were reported, highlighting the safety of the treatments. The combined Light sources which is portable LED helmet and LMNPs shows promise as a non-invasive, effective treatment for AGA, with similar efficacy between red and green wavelengths.