We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
The self-recovery of facial skin barrier and erythema after nanochip treatment.
Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy : Official Publication of the European Society for Laser Dermatology 2017 November
OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of acute skin damage and the time required for the recovery of facial skin barrier function after the skin was treated with micro-needles and nanochips of various tip lengths.
METHODS: For this split face comparative study, a total of 16 subjects were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. In the first group, one of the facial side of each subject was treated with 0.25-mm long nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.25-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. In the second group, one of the facial side was treated with 0.5-mm nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. Evaluations for trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and erythema were carried out at baseline, 0, 4, 8, 24, 48 and 72 hours after the treatment.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in TEWL, skin hydration and erythema between the two facial sides of the subjects in the Group one who were treated with 0.25 mm nanochips and traditional micro-needles. However, in the subjects of the Group two, the mean TEWL of the facial side treated with 0.5 mm nanochips was relatively lower than that of the 0.5 mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 0, 4, 8 and 24 hours after the treatment. Mean erythema of the facial side treated with 0.5-mm nanochips micro-needles was also relatively lower than that of the 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 8 hours after the treatment. Rapid recovery of skin barrier function was observed within 4-8 hours after treatment with various lengths of nanochips while it took at least 48-72 hours for recovery of skin barrier function after treatment with various lengths of traditional micro-needles as measured by TEWL.
CONCLUSION: The skin disruption caused by nanotips treatment recovers quicker than the traditional microneedle treatment at equal lengths.
METHODS: For this split face comparative study, a total of 16 subjects were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. In the first group, one of the facial side of each subject was treated with 0.25-mm long nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.25-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. In the second group, one of the facial side was treated with 0.5-mm nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. Evaluations for trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and erythema were carried out at baseline, 0, 4, 8, 24, 48 and 72 hours after the treatment.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in TEWL, skin hydration and erythema between the two facial sides of the subjects in the Group one who were treated with 0.25 mm nanochips and traditional micro-needles. However, in the subjects of the Group two, the mean TEWL of the facial side treated with 0.5 mm nanochips was relatively lower than that of the 0.5 mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 0, 4, 8 and 24 hours after the treatment. Mean erythema of the facial side treated with 0.5-mm nanochips micro-needles was also relatively lower than that of the 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 8 hours after the treatment. Rapid recovery of skin barrier function was observed within 4-8 hours after treatment with various lengths of nanochips while it took at least 48-72 hours for recovery of skin barrier function after treatment with various lengths of traditional micro-needles as measured by TEWL.
CONCLUSION: The skin disruption caused by nanotips treatment recovers quicker than the traditional microneedle treatment at equal lengths.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app