Discussion : Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy , albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime , and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes .
Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis ( FP ) has a much safer profile but can not achieve as good cosmetic results .
The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile .
Conclusion : Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles .
There is an overall lack of high- quality evidence about the effects of different interventions .
Introduction : Acne scarring is a very common problem , which can be extensive , and may lead to significant psychosocial morbidity .
Multiple types of treatments are used to ameliorate atrophic scars with varying degrees of success .
This paper provides an overview of the various energy-based modalities that are commonly employed against acne scarring .
Objectives and methods : A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring .
Comparative study on efficacy and safety of 1550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser and fractional radiofrequency microneedle device for facial atrophic acne scar.
BACKGROUND The 1550 nm Er : Glass fractional laser is widely used for the treatment of atrophic acne scar .  A novel fractional radiofrequency microneedle device has recently emerged as an alternative for treating acne scars . OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a Er : Glass fractional laser and fractional radiofrequency microneedle device in the treatment of facial atrophic acne scars and to assess the difference between the treatment modalities depending on facial compartment . METHODS A total of 40 patients were equally r and omized into two groups . Each group of 20 patients received three treatments at 4-week interval using Er : Glass fractional laser or fractional radiofrequency microneedle device . RESULTS Scar severity scores ( ECCA grading scale ) improved by a mean of 25.0 % and 18.6 % in groups A and B , respectively ( both P < 0.01 ) . The difference in the degree of improvement was not statistically significant between the groups after three sessions of treatment . There were no significant side effects . CONCLUSION Atrophic acne scars improved in both groups without significant side effects . Additionally , the fractional laser was a more effective treatment option for acne scars , but the fractional radiofrequency microneedle device offered good adherence and short downtime
Discussion : Ablative lasers seem to achieve the highest degree of efficacy , albeit this is associated with significant pain and downtime , and the risk for long-term pigmentary changes .
Non-ablative fractional photothermolysis ( FP ) has a much safer profile but can not achieve as good cosmetic results .
The efficacies of fractional radiofrequency microneedling and radiofrequency are slightly inferior to that of FP but offer an even safer adverse profile .
Conclusion : Multiple devices have been used with varying levels of efficacy and very different safety profiles .
There is an overall lack of high- quality evidence about the effects of different interventions .
Introduction : Acne scarring is a very common problem , which can be extensive , and may lead to significant psychosocial morbidity .
Multiple types of treatments are used to ameliorate atrophic scars with varying degrees of success .
This paper provides an overview of the various energy-based modalities that are commonly employed against acne scarring .
Objectives and methods : A comprehensive literature search of papers published since 2008 was performed in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used energy-based treatments against post-acne scarring .