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 .
Comparison of a Long‐Pulse Nd:YAG Laser and a Combined 585/1,064‐nm Laser for the Treatment of Acne Scars: A Randomized Split‐Face Clinical Study
BACKGROUND Nonablative laser is gaining popularity because of the low risk of complications , especially in patients with darker skin . OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of a long‐pulse neodymium‐doped yttrium aluminium garnet ( Nd : YAG ) laser and a combined 585/1,064‐nm laser for the treatment of acne scars . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Nineteen patients with mild to moderate atrophic acne scars received four long‐pulse Nd : YAG laser or combined 585/1,064‐nm laser treatment sessions at fortnightly intervals . Treatments were administered r and omly in a split‐face manner . RESULTS Acne scars showed mild to moderate improvement , with significant Echelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné ( ECCA ) score reductions , after both treatments . Although intermodality differences were not significant , combined 585/1,064‐nm laser was more effective for deep boxcar scars . In patients with combined 585/1,064‐nm laser‐treated sides that improved more than long‐pulse Nd : YAG laser‐treated sides , ECCA scores were significantly lower for combined 585/1,064‐nm laser treatment . Histologic evaluations revealed significantly greater collagen deposition , although there was no significant difference between the two modalities . Patient satisfaction scores concurred with physicians ' evaluations . CONCLUSION Both lasers ameliorated acne scarring with minimal downtime . In light of this finding , optimal outcomes might be achieved when laser treatment types are chosen after considering individual scar type and response . The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters
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 .