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 .
Which Type of Atrophic Acne Scar (Ice‐pick, Boxcar, or Rolling) Responds to Nonablative Fractional Laser Therapy?
BACKGROUND Few studies have examined the role of fractional lasers in individual acne scars ( ice‐pick , box car , rolling ) using objective assessment tools in darkly pigmented skin . OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of 1,540‐nm fractional lasers on individual acne scars . METHODS and MATERIAL S A prospect i ve interventional study was conducted in 35 patients using a 1,540‐nm fractional laser .  Six sessions were performed with four passes per session and a dose varying from 70 to 100 mJ to maximize the DWR . A self‐devised objective assessment tool with dose setting s to optimize the depth‐to‐width ratio ( DWR ) and a visual analog scale ( VAS ) were used to count individual atrophic scars . Final results were assessed 6 months after final laser treatment . RESULTS Acne scar reduction efficiency was used to vali date the improvement of individual scars , a meaningful difference was considered as 51 % or greater improvement . The boxcar scars ( 52.9 % ) responded better than the rolling ( 43.1 % ) and ice‐pick scars ( 25.9 % ) , with statistically significant improvement ( p < .05 ) seen in boxcar scars after four sessions . Overall VAS scores revealed significant improvement ( p < .001 ) . CONCLUSION Using an objective evaluation tool , an erbium‐doped glass laser was found to improve atrophic acne scars , markedly so for boxcar and rolling scars . The VAS score overestimated improvement because of its subjective nature
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 .