[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.87.121.0. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Light Spectrum With Common Laser Wavelengths and Absorption Peaks for Common Molecular Targets Superimposed
Light Spectrum With Common Laser Wavelengths and Absorption Peaks for Common Molecular Targets Superimposed

Adapted from Lumenis. IPL indicates intense pulsed light.

Figure 2.
Summary of Literature Review for Energy-Based Facial Rejuvenation Keywords and Selected Articles
Summary of Literature Review for Energy-Based Facial Rejuvenation Keywords and Selected Articles
Table 1.  
PubMed Search Terms and Citations
PubMed Search Terms and Citations
Table 2.  
Selected Source Articles for Major Therapies Available
Selected Source Articles for Major Therapies Available
Table 3.  
Summarized Current Clinical Practice Recommendations and Uncertainties for Discussed Diagnoses
Summarized Current Clinical Practice Recommendations and Uncertainties for Discussed Diagnoses
1.
Anderson  RR, Parrish  JA.  Selective photothermolysis: precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science. 1983;220(4596):524-527.
PubMedArticle
2.
Manstein  D, Herron  GS, Sink  RK, Tanner  H, Anderson  RR.  Fractional photothermolysis: a new concept for cutaneous remodeling using microscopic patterns of thermal injury. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;34(5):426-438.
PubMedArticle
3.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/. Accessed February 28, 2016.
4.
Rhee  JS, Sullivan  CD, Frank  DO, Kimbell  JS, Garcia  GJ.  A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014;16(3):219-225.
PubMedArticle
5.
Triana  L, Cuadros  SC, Triana  C, Barbato  C, Zambrano  M.  Laser resurfacing for Latin skins: the experience with 665 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39(4):582-588.
PubMedArticle
6.
El-Domyati  M, Abd-El-Raheem  T, Abdel-Wahab  H,  et al.  Fractional versus ablative erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser resurfacing for facial rejuvenation: an objective evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(1):103-112.
PubMedArticle
7.
Cohen  JL.  Perioral rejuvenation with ablative erbium resurfacing. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(11):1363-1366.
PubMed
8.
Hantash  BM, Bedi  VP, Chan  KF, Zachary  CB.  Ex vivo histological characterization of a novel ablative fractional resurfacing device. Lasers Surg Med. 2007;39(2):87-95.
PubMedArticle
9.
Tierney  EP, Hanke  CW.  Fractionated carbon dioxide laser treatment of photoaging: prospective study in 45 patients and review of the literature. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(9):1279-1290.
PubMedArticle
10.
Shamsaldeen  O, Peterson  JD, Goldman  MP.  The adverse events of deep fractional CO(2): a retrospective study of 490 treatments in 374 patients. Lasers Surg Med. 2011;43(6):453-456.
PubMedArticle
11.
Rhie  JW, Shim  JS, Choi  WS.  A pilot study of skin resurfacing using the 2,790-nm erbium:YSGG laser system. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42(1):52-58.
PubMedArticle
12.
El-Domyati  M, Abd-El-Raheem  T, Medhat  W, Abdel-Wahab  H, Al Anwer  M.  Multiple fractional erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser sessions for upper facial rejuvenation: clinical and histological implications and expectations. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014;13(1):30-37.
PubMedArticle
13.
Khatri  KA, Mahoney  D, Hakam  L.  High-fluence fractional treatment of photodamaged facial skin using a 2940 nm erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):260-266.
PubMedArticle
14.
Luebberding  S, Alexiades-Armenakas  MR.  Fractional, nonablative Q-switched 1,064-nm neodymium YAG laser to rejuvenate photoaged skin: a pilot case series. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(11):1300-1304.
PubMed
15.
Hong  JS, Park  SY, Seo  KK,  et al.  Long pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser treatment for wrinkle reduction and skin laxity: evaluation of new parameters. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(9):e345-e350.
PubMedArticle
16.
Gold  MH, Sensing  W, Biron  J.  Fractional Q-switched 1,064-nm laser for the treatment of photoaged-photodamaged skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(2):69-76.
PubMedArticle
17.
Jun  HJ, Kim  SM, Choi  WJ, Cho  SH, Lee  JD, Kim  HS.  A split-face, evaluator-blind randomized study on the early effects of Q-switched Nd:YAG laser versus Er:YAG micropeel in light solar lentigines in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(2):83-88.
PubMedArticle
18.
Clementoni  MT, Lavagno  R, Munavalli  G.  A new multi-modal fractional ablative CO2 laser for wrinkle reduction and skin resurfacing. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):244-252.
PubMedArticle
19.
Cohen  JL, Ross  EV.  Combined fractional ablative and nonablative laser resurfacing treatment: a split-face comparative study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12(2):175-178.
PubMed
20.
Walgrave  SE, Kist  DA, Noyaner-Turley  A, Zelickson  BD.  Minimally ablative resurfacing with the confluent 2,790 nm erbium:YSGG laser: a pilot study on safety and efficacy. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(2):103-111.
PubMedArticle
21.
Goldberg  DJ, Cutler  KB.  Nonablative treatment of rhytids with intense pulsed light. Lasers Surg Med. 2000;26(2):196-200.
PubMedArticle
22.
Bitter  PH.  Noninvasive rejuvenation of photodamaged skin using serial, full-face intense pulsed light treatments. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26(9):835-842.
PubMedArticle
23.
Sadick  NS, Weiss  R, Kilmer  S, Bitter  P.  Photorejuvenation with intense pulsed light: results of a multi-center study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2004;3(1):41-49.
PubMed
24.
Fang  L, Gold  MH, Huang  L.  Melasma-like hyperpigmentation induced by intense pulsed light treatment in Chinese individuals. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(6):296-302.
PubMedArticle
25.
Chung  JY, Choi  M, Lee  JH, Cho  S, Lee  JH.  Pulse in pulse intense pulsed light for melasma treatment: a pilot study. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(2):162-168.
PubMedArticle
26.
Yun  WJ, Lee  SM, Han  JS,  et al.  A prospective, split-face, randomized study of the efficacy and safety of a novel fractionated intense pulsed light treatment for melasma in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(5):259-266.
PubMedArticle
27.
Chan  CS, Saedi  N, Mickle  C, Dover  JS.  Combined treatment for facial rejuvenation using an optimized pulsed light source followed by a fractional non-ablative laser. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45(7):405-409.
PubMedArticle
28.
Kearney  C, Brew  D.  Single-session combination treatment with intense pulsed light and nonablative fractional photothermolysis: a split-face study. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(7, pt 1):1002-1009.
PubMedArticle
29.
Tao  L, Wu  J, Qian  H,  et al.  Intense pulsed light, near infrared pulsed light, and fractional laser combination therapy for skin rejuvenation in Asian subjects: a prospective multi-center study in China. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(7):1977-1983.
PubMedArticle
30.
Bae  MI, Park  JM, Jeong  KH, Lee  MH, Shin  MK.  Effectiveness of low-fluence and short-pulse intense pulsed light in the treatment of melasma: a randomized study. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(6):292-295.
PubMedArticle
31.
Alexiades-Armenakas  M, Rosenberg  D, Renton  B, Dover  J, Arndt  K.  Blinded, randomized, quantitative grading comparison of minimally invasive, fractional radiofrequency and surgical face-lift to treat skin laxity. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(4):396-405.
PubMedArticle
32.
Laubach  HJ, Makin  IR, Barthe  PG, Slayton  MH, Manstein  D.  Intense focused ultrasound: evaluation of a new treatment modality for precise microcoagulation within the skin. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34(5):727-734.
PubMed
33.
Lee  HS, Jang  WS, Cha  YJ,  et al.  Multiple pass ultrasound tightening of skin laxity of the lower face and neck. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(1):20-27.
PubMedArticle
34.
Harris  MO, Sundaram  HA.  Safety of microfocused ultrasound with visualization in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III to VI. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(5):355-357.
PubMedArticle
35.
Oni  G, Hoxworth  R, Teotia  S, Brown  S, Kenkel  JM.  Evaluation of a microfocused ultrasound system for improving skin laxity and tightening in the lower face. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(7):1099-1110.
PubMedArticle
36.
Suh  DH, Oh  YJ, Lee  SJ,  et al.  A intense-focused ultrasound tightening for the treatment of infraorbital laxity. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):290-295.
PubMedArticle
37.
Fabi  SG, Goldman  MP.  Retrospective evaluation of micro-focused ultrasound for lifting and tightening the face and neck. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(5):569-575.
PubMedArticle
38.
Lee  HJ, Lee  KR, Park  JY, Yoon  MS, Lee  SE.  The efficacy and safety of intense focused ultrasound in the treatment of enlarged facial pores in Asian skin. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26(1):73-77.
PubMedArticle
39.
Nelson  AA, Beynet  D, Lask  GP.  A novel non-invasive radiofrequency dermal heating device for skin tightening of the face and neck. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(6):307-312.
PubMedArticle
40.
Bloom  BS, Emer  J, Goldberg  DJ.  Assessment of safety and efficacy of a bipolar fractionated radiofrequency device in the treatment of photodamaged skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(5):208-211.
PubMedArticle
41.
Taub  AF, Tucker  RD, Palange  A.  Facial tightening with an advanced 4-MHz monopolar radiofrequency device. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(11):1288-1294.
PubMed
42.
Tierney  EP.  Treatment of acne scarring using a dual-spot-size ablative fractionated carbon dioxide laser: review of the literature. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(7):945-961.
PubMedArticle
43.
Hedelund  L, Haak  CS, Togsverd-Bo  K, Bogh  MK, Bjerring  P, Haedersdal  M.  Fractional CO2 laser resurfacing for atrophic acne scars: a randomized controlled trial with blinded response evaluation. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(6):447-452.
PubMedArticle
44.
You  HJ, Kim  DW, Yoon  ES, Park  SH.  Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(4):e87-e95.
PubMedArticle
45.
Alster  TS, Tanzi  EL, Lazarus  M.  The use of fractional laser photothermolysis for the treatment of atrophic scars. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(3):295-299.
PubMed
46.
Lee  SJ, Kang  JM, Chung  WS, Kim  YK, Kim  HS.  Ablative non-fractional lasers for atrophic facial acne scars: a new modality of erbium:YAG laser resurfacing in Asians. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(2):615-619.
PubMedArticle
47.
Keaney  TC, Tanzi  E, Alster  T.  Comparison of 532 nm potassium titanyl phosphate laser and 595 nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of erythematous surgical scars: a randomized, controlled, open-label study. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(1):70-76.
PubMedArticle
48.
Shin  JU, Gantsetseg  D, Jung  JY, Jung  I, Shin  S, Lee  JH.  Comparison of non-ablative and ablative fractional laser treatments in a postoperative scar study. Lasers Surg Med. 2014;46(10):741-749.
PubMedArticle
49.
Kim  DH, Ryu  HJ, Choi  JE, Ahn  HH, Kye  YC, Seo  SH.  A comparison of the scar prevention effect between carbon dioxide fractional laser and pulsed dye laser in surgical scars. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(9):973-978.
PubMedArticle
50.
Goldman  MP, Gold  MH, Palm  MD,  et al.  Sequential treatment with triple combination cream and intense pulsed light is more efficacious than sequential treatment with an inactive (control) cream and intense pulsed light in patients with moderate to severe melasma. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(2):224-233.
PubMedArticle
51.
Figueiredo Souza  L, Trancoso Souza  S.  Single-session intense pulsed light combined with stable fixed-dose triple combination topical therapy for the treatment of refractory melasma. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25(5):477-480.
PubMedArticle
52.
Kroon  MW, Wind  BS, Beek  JF,  et al.  Nonablative 1550-nm fractional laser therapy versus triple topical therapy for the treatment of melasma: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(3):516-523.
PubMedArticle
53.
Jalaly  NY, Valizadeh  N, Barikbin  B, Yousefi  M.  Low-power fractional CO₂ laser versus low-fluence Q-switch 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser for treatment of melasma: a randomized, controlled, split-face study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15(4):357-363.
PubMedArticle
54.
Wattanakrai  P, Mornchan  R, Eimpunth  S.  Low-fluence Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (1,064 nm) laser for the treatment of facial melasma in Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(1):76-87.
PubMedArticle
55.
Kar  HK, Gupta  L, Chauhan  A.  A comparative study on efficacy of high and low fluence Q-switched Nd:YAG laser and glycolic acid peel in melasma. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2012;78(2):165-171.
PubMedArticle
56.
Park  KY, Kim  DH, Kim  HK, Li  K, Seo  SJ, Hong  CK.  A randomized, observer-blinded, comparison of combined 1064-nm Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser plus 30% glycolic acid peel vs. laser monotherapy to treat melasma. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36(8):864-870.
PubMedArticle
57.
Vachiramon  V, Sirithanabadeekul  P, Sahawatwong  S.  Low-fluence Q-switched Nd: YAG 1064-nm laser and intense pulsed light for the treatment of melasma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(7):1339-1346.
PubMedArticle
58.
Yun  WJ, Moon  HR, Lee  MW, Choi  JH, Chang  SE.  Combination treatment of low-fluence 1,064-nm Q-switched Nd: YAG laser with novel intense pulse light in Korean melasma patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(8):842-850.
PubMedArticle
59.
Passeron  T, Fontas  E, Kang  HY, Bahadoran  P, Lacour  JP, Ortonne  JP.  Melasma treatment with pulsed-dye laser and triple combination cream: a prospective, randomized, single-blind, split-face study. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(9):1106-1108.
PubMedArticle
60.
Hong  SP, Han  SS, Choi  SJ,  et al.  Split-face comparative study of 1550 nm fractional photothermolysis and trichloroacetic acid 15% chemical peeling for facial melasma in Asian skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(2):81-86.
PubMedArticle
61.
Wind  BS, Kroon  MW, Meesters  AA,  et al.  Non-ablative 1,550 nm fractional laser therapy versus triple topical therapy for the treatment of melasma: a randomized controlled split-face study. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42(7):607-612.
PubMedArticle
62.
Woolery-Lloyd  H, Viera  MH, Valins  W.  Laser therapy in black skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2011;19(2):405-416.
PubMedArticle
63.
Alexis  AF.  Lasers and light-based therapies in ethnic skin: treatment options and recommendations for Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(suppl 3):91-97.
PubMedArticle
64.
Rossi  AM, Perez  MI.  Laser therapy in Latino skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2011;19(2):389-403.
PubMedArticle
65.
Carniol  PJ, Woolery-Lloyd  H, Zhao  AS, Murray  K.  Laser treatment for ethnic skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2010;18(1):105-110.
PubMedArticle
66.
Doherty  SD, Doherty  CB, Markus  JS, Markus  RF.  A paradigm for facial skin rejuvenation. Facial Plast Surg. 2009;25(4):245-251.
PubMedArticle
67.
Man  J, Goldberg  DJ.  Safety and efficacy of fractional bipolar radiofrequency treatment in Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(4):179-183.
PubMedArticle
Views 338
Citations 0
Review
December 01, 2016

Energy-Based Facial RejuvenationAdvances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Otolaryngology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. Published online December 1, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1435
Key Points

Question  What advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management of energy-based facial rejuvenation have been introduced in the past 5 years?

Findings  In this systematic review, facial rejuvenation treatments and devices that focus on decreasing adverse effects and improving downtime were identified: lasers, light therapy, and non–laser-based thermal tightening.

Meaning  Improved efficacy and safety with nonablative fractioned lasers and intense pulsed light has led to improved options with minimal downtime for patients with mild to moderate degree of photoaging; however, full-field resurfacing remains important for more severe photoaging and facial rhytids.

Abstract

Importance  The market for nonsurgical, energy-based facial rejuvenation techniques has increased exponentially since lasers were first used for skin rejuvenation in 1983. Advances in this area have led to a wide range of products that require the modern facial plastic surgeon to have a large repertoire of knowledge.

Objective  To serve as a guide for current trends in the development of technology, applications, and outcomes of laser and laser-related technology over the past 5 years.

Evidence Review  We performed a review of PubMed from January 1, 2011, to March 1, 2016, and focused on randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines including case control, case studies and case reports when necessary, and included 14 articles we deemed landmark articles before 2011.

Findings  Three broad categories of technology are leading non–energy-based rejuvenation technology: lasers, light therapy, and non–laser-based thermal tightening devices. Laser light therapy has continued to diversify with the use of ablative and nonablative resurfacing technologies, fractionated lasers, and their combined use. Light therapy has developed for use in combination with other technologies or stand alone. Finally, thermally based nonlaser skin-tightening devices, such as radiofrequency (RF) and intense focused ultrasonography (IFUS), are evolving technologies that have changed rapidly over the past 5 years.

Conclusions and Relevance  Improvements in safety and efficacy for energy-based treatment have expanded the patient base considering these therapies viable options. With a wide variety of options, the modern facial plastic surgeon can have a frank discussion with the patient regarding nonsurgical techniques that were never before available. Many of these patients can now derive benefit from treatments requiring significantly less downtime than before while the clinician can augment the treatment to maximize benefit to fit the patient’s time schedule.

Introduction

The term laser originated from an acronym that stands for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Its use is a cornerstone for today’s facial plastic surgeon (Figure 1). The landmark article by Anderson and Parrish1 in 1983 on selective photothermolysis began the era of laser-therapy skin rejuvenation. These techniques were expanded on by Manstein et al2 in the seminal article on fractional photothermolysis in 2004. This leap in laser technology reduced scarring by using microscopic treatment zones used to promote tissue remodeling and ushered in an era in minimal downtime after laser therapy. Over the past decade, laser technology, in addition to intense pulsed light (IPL), radiofrequency devices, and focused high-frequency ultrasonography technologies, has increased options for patients in facial rejuvenation, resurfacing, and tightening.

With the advent of such technologies, both supply and demand have increased at incredible speeds. According to the American Society for Plastic Surgery statistics, which provide a comprehensive estimate on the total number of cosmetic procedures performed in the United States, minimally invasive cosmetic procedures laser resurfacing procedures have increased by more than 200% since 2000. In 2014, more than 540 000 laser skin-resurfacing procedures were performed with a 6% increase from 2013, 87% of which were performed in women.3 These statistics do not include the large number of non–laser-based products used for facial rejuvenation and tightening or light-based facial rejuvenation technologies. With the ever-expanding repertoire of technology and products, it is important to understand the efficacy of each to match the demand.

Methods

We performed a review of PubMed from 2011 to 2016 using specific search strategies, modeled after systematic reviews but confined a 5-year constraint.4 Our primary search used the terms summarized in Table 1, and we also included 14 articles that we deemed landmark articles published before 2011. We restricted articles to human data reported in the English language. We screened articles published between January 1, 2011, and March 1, 2016, and focused on randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, including case-control studies, case studies, and case reports when necessary. These searches generated 692 articles, and all abstracts were reviewed. We selected articles for full review that were deemed to provide major advances in the diagnosis or treatment of laser and light treatment (Figure 2). Articles were excluded if there was only histologic analysis, clinical analysis was lacking, primary therapies were non–energy based or invasive, they were nonsystematic reviews, they contained technological evaluation unrelated to therapy, or the therapy was not applicable to facial rejuvenation. We considered sources of bias in these articles and defined areas of uncertainty as those in which the evidence conflicted.

Advances in Treatment
Skin Rejuvenation

Full-field ablative or traditional laser resurfacing removes the entire skin surface in the area being treated with depth of injury depending on energy level. Ablative skin resurfacing was popularized in the 1990s after the introduction of pulsed carbon dioxide systems. At that time, carbon dioxide laser was largely used for treatment of acne scarring and facial rhytids. This technique continues to be used to treat severe acne scarring and moderate rhytids with a high degree of patient satisfaction, as well as to treat prolonged erythema and pigmentation issues.5 The introduction of the erbium yttrium aluminum garnet (erbium:YAG) laser allows for minimal thermal damage and quicker postoperative healing with the tradeoff of decreased tissue tightening.6 Newer erbium:YAG lasers (Contour TRL) use a simultaneous combination of ablative and nonablative resurfacing for severe perioral rhytids to minimize recovery time while maximizing benefit of each individual treatment.7 Full-field resurfacing is great tool for improvement in patients with moderate photoaging and rhytids who are willing to undergo a longer downtime for the benefit of a single treatment. Clinical experience by the senior author (B.C.M.) and colleagues confirm that extensive facial resurfacing with a tunable erbium:YAG laser can be performed with dramatically reduced risks of hypopigmentation, scarring, or postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Fractional laser resurfacing treats a small “fraction” of the skin at each session, leaving skip areas between each exposed area. Fractional ablative resurfacing with carbon dioxide was initially described in 2007.8 Carbon dioxide fractionated resurfacing improves photodamage by approximately 50%, with downtime generally limited to 1 week and an improved adverse effect profile over full-field resurfacing.9,10 erbium:YAG, yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (YSGG) and Er:YSGG (2790-nm) systems were introduced with the intent of providing more significant results than nonablative fractional systems while achieving shorter healing times and complications when compared with full-field ablative systems.11 erbium:YAG lasers can be used in multiple sessions with increased fluence to increase improvement in photoaging without increasing down time while also increasing the amount of new collagen formation.12 One study showed a 26% to 75% improvement in photoaging with multiple passes and a higher fluence with only a 3- to 4-day downtime.13 The tradeoff of these lasers compared with full-field ablative lasers is the need for multiple sessions to achieve similar results.

The first nonablative fractional laser was the Fraxel device (Reliant Technologies Inc [now Solta, a subsidiary of Valeant Pharmaceuticals]).2 Similar to ablative lasers, these devices primarily target dermal water, which causes collagen heating and dermal remodeling. Unlike their ablative counterparts; however, epidermal injury and tissue vaporization do not occur owing to the concomitant application of epidermal cooling. Several different nonablative, fractional lasers are now used with promising results, with an improved safety profile.14 The long-pulsed Nd:YAG (LPND) has shown modest improvement in rhytids and photoaging with erythema resolving almost immediately after treatment.15 These lasers tend to have more modest results and are geared to mild-to-moderate photo damage and solar lentigines but allow for quick recovery with little risk.16,17 These lasers can also be used for resurfacing in darker skin types—a major advance in treating nonwhite patients

Newer techniques involve the use of fractionated lasers with both ablative and nonablative properties with reduced adverse effects compared with deeper, purely ablative lasers.18,19 The 2790 nm erbium:YSGG laser (Pearl; Cutera), an ablative laser with mild thermal coagulation showed significant improvement in patients with rhytids and fine lines to the 2-year mark without adverse effects and minimal downtime.20 The combined effects of ablative and nonablative fractional lasers allow for a higher degree of rejuvenation than the nonablative lasers while maintaining less downtime than full-field ablative fractional lasers. Multiple sessions are, however, still required.

Non–Laser-Based Skin Rejuvenation

The nonlaser, light systems used for nonablative rejuvenation are group of devices that emit wavelengths in the visible (400-760 nm), near-infrared (760-1400 nm), or mid-infrared (1.4-3 μm) ranges. Both IPL and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are in this group. These modalities induce dermal remodeling without epidermal ablation. Most investigators believe that photothermal heating of the dermis both increases collagen production by fibroblasts and induces remodeling of the dermal matrix.

Intense pulsed light was first described for the treatment of rhytids and photodamaged skin in 2000.21,22 In a multicenter study in 2004, IPL showed significant improvement in patient’s evaluation of the elastosis score at the 6-month follow-up with minimal adverse events and no down time.23 Because of their safety profile and lack of down time, they are often used in combination with other lasers to enhance rejuvenation. Large series show that hyperpigmentation is possible, but only in a small proportion of patients (2.96%).24 Fractionated IPL and pulse in pulse IPL may mitigate some risk of hyperpigmentation from IPL and thus may be safer in patients with melasma.25,26

An erbium:YAG laser alone was compared with a combination erbium:YAG laser with IPL treatments and showed improvement in the Fitzpatrick wrinkle scale in both groups but a showed greater improvement in pigmentation in the combination group.27 In a split-face study looking at IPL and nonablative fractional laser treatment alone and in combination for photoaging, the treatment in combination proved statistically superior with no increase in adverse outcomes.28 Combination therapy of IPL and fractional erbium:YAG laser treatment compared with IPL alone in a split-face study showed global improvement in pigmentation, pore size, rhytids, and skin texture in all groups compared with base line with significant improvement in the combination therapy compared with IPL alone.29 These studies show that the IPL in combination with other laser techniques can improve skin clarity with a minimal adverse effect profile or additional down time.30

Non–Laser-Based Skin Tightening

All nonsurgical skin-tightening devices work by delivering thermal energy to the skin or underlying structures. This creates immediate mechanical contraction of collagen fibers and delayed biochemical remodeling and neocollagenesis via the wound-healing response. New therapies available include radiofrequency (RF) and intense focused ultrasonography (IFUS) or microfocused ultrasonography (MFU). Nonsurgical skin tightening is best suited to patients with mild to moderate skin laxity and photoaging, or extrinsic aging, without significant underlying structural ptosis. Patients with underlying structural and excessive skin laxity with deep rhytids from intrinsic aging are likely to have limited improvement compared with surgical techniques and should be counseled appropriately.31

Ultrasonographic therapy (MFU or IFUS) works by creating precision microwounds in the dermis without affecting the epidermis with varied high-frequency ultrasound waves.32 It is very effective in thin patients with mild to moderate skin laxity with proven results both subjectively and objectively, and it is safe in all Fitzpatrick phototypes.33,34 In one study35 using computer-assisted measurements, 63.6% had improvement in their skin laxity; while only 12.2% of patients with body-mass index, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, greater than 30 had improvement at 3 months. A study examining IFUS (Ulthera system, Ulthera Inc) for tightening infraorbital laxity with 1 to 2 treatments showed improvement in all patients at 6 months.36 In a similar study, 67% of patients undergoing 1 treatment of MFU had improvement in skin laxity at 6 months.37 Intense focused ultrasonography has significant promise as a nonsurgical therapy for skin and pore tightening,38 but long-term outcome data are still lacking.

Radiofrequency works by using the natural electrical resistance of the tissues to convert that energy into thermal energy. Both monopolar and bipolar forms of this technology are available. Results are again limited by follow-up, but have shown improvement compared with baseline. In one study31 comparing the RF device with traditional surgical face-lift, improvements were modest; however, patients had a high degree of satisfaction in both groups. In another study39 looking at bipolar radiofrequency tightening of the face and neck, 14 patients underwent a series of 4 to 6 weekly treatments, and their outcomes were measured by 3 blinded physicians. All patients reported experiencing improvement. Modest improvements in dyschromia and skin texture are also reported.40 Taub et al41 examined patients undergoing 6 monopolar treatments over six months and showed an average of 30% patient improvement at 1 year since the first treatment, the longest follow-up to date. Obviously, additional study with a more validated approach will be very helpful in evaluating this technology.

Scar Treatment

Ablative fractionated lasers are used to successfully treat acne scars, including severe scars on a variety of anatomic locations. Treatments are typically performed as a single procedure owing to their robust clinical results compared with nonablative fractional lasers.42,43 In a study by You et al,44 resurfacing carbon dioxide and erbium:YAG lasers were compared with fractional lasers, both ablative and nonablative, and results were measured by blinded investigators. They found that carbon dioxide lasers caused more hyperpigmentation and erythema, and that all results were comparable with the exception of less dramatic results in the nonablative group. They also found that that 3 ablative fractionated laser treatments were equivalent to the resurfacing lasers with shorter downtime periods and less adverse effects.44

Nonablative fractional lasers can be successfully used in the treatment of various forms of scarring, including acne scarring, with a very favorable safety profile. Alster et al45 showed impressive results with mild to moderate acne scarring; 87% of patients who received 3 treatments at 4-week intervals showed at moderate improvement in the appearance of their acne scars. Nonablative fractional lasers can also be safely used to treat acne scarring in darker-pigmented patients. A study of 22 Korean patients with skin types III or V who were treated with erbium:YAG nonablative fractional resurfacing treatment, with 1 patient experiencing mild hypopigmentation and 1 patient experiencing postinflammatory hyperpigmentation lasting longer than 3 months.46

Improvements in surgical and traumatic scarring are also abundant. Keaney et al47 looked at pulsed dye laser (PDL) vs potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser for the treatment of erythematous surgical scars in a randomized study showing significant improvement in both groups and only more significant improvement in vascularity in the KTP arm without significant adverse effects. In a study48 looking at nonablative vs ablative fractional laser treatments for postthyroidectomy scars, no difference was seen between the 2 systems, but the nonablative system was better for lightening color and the ablative system was better at decreasing hardness arguing for a combined approach. Another study49 looked at the difference between PDL and carbon dioxide ablative fractional lasers and significant improvement in both groups, but there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups. The PDL group was superior in improvement of vascularity and pigmentation, and the ablative group was superior in pliability and thickness.

Melasma

Several different laser and light therapies are available for the treatment of melasma. Intense pulsed light safety and efficacy was examined in a 10-week split-face study using a triple combination cream (Tri-luma Cream, Galderma Laboratories LP) vs placebo. Results were improved at 10 weeks vs placebo, but the active ingredient group had more skin irritation.50 A randomized open label study was performed for refractory melasma comparing IPL with bleaching agents and sunscreen alone vs in conjunction with IPL. There was significant improvement in the melasma group out to 1 year compared with the control group with only 1 session of IPL.51 Similarly, nonablative fractional lasers were compared with triple topical therapy (hydroquinone, 5%; tretinoin, 0.05%; and triamcinolone acetonide cream, 0.1%) with comparable efficacy, and the authors stated that laser treatment should be considered if topical bleaching is ineffective or cannot be tolerated.52

Fractionated lasers on decreased settings can be effective and safe with both ablative and nonablative techniques.53 Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum Garnet (QS-Nd:YAG) laser vs hydroquinone for the treatment of melasma was compared in a randomized split-face study with improved patient satisfaction and lightening of the QS-Nd:YAG treated side; however, all patients had recurrence of their melasma at 12 weeks after treatment.54 Comparing QS-Nd:YAG with glycolic acid peels, improvement in the melasma area and severity index (MASI) score in the QS-Nd:YAG group was seen, and, when the treatments were combined, there was superior improvement objectively in the group using the modified MASI.55,56 QS-Nd:YAG and IPL combination therapy compared with QS-Nd:YAG alone and IPL alone showed an improvement over QS-Nd:YAG alone and IPL alone with combination therapy; however, recurrence was still an issue.57,58

Pulsed dye laser with triple-combination therapy was compared with triple-combination therapy alone in a split-face study showing improvement in the MASI on the combination side with statistically significant improvement at the 2-month follow-up visit; however, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did occur.59 Fractional laser therapy using both ablative and nonablative lasers were compared in several studies showing high recurrence rates with fractional therapy and a higher incidence in PIH.60,61 Melasma continues to be a difficult problem, with frequent recurrence, but refinements in techniques are helping identify the optimal treatment to improve pigmentation without hypopigmentation or worsening PIH.

Ethnic Skin

Darker skin types, Fitzpatrick type V and VI, have thicker and more compact skin layers with thicker collagen bundles, which increase the epidermal barrier and reduce skin sensitivity in addition to a higher density of larger melanosomes.6264 Ablative nonfractionated lasers, including the carbon dioxide and the erbium:YAG, can lead to improvements in rhytids and acne scars in darker skin; however, these are contraindicated in Fitzpatrick type V and VI skin owing to the risk of dyspigmentation and scarring.64 These risks are somewhat mitigated in patients using nonablative nonfractionated lasers, such as the 1319-nm PDL, 1320-nm Nd:YAG, and the 1540-nm diode laser, with improvement in acne scars and overall scar severity, but they do not have the improvement in rhytids seen with patients treated with more aggressive lasers.62,63,65,66

Fractionated lasers improve safety profiles further. Nonablative fractionated lasers, such as the 1440-nm Nd:YAG, 1550-nm Er laser, and 1927-nm thulium fiber laser, can moderately improve skin texture, acne scarring and rhytids.62,64,65 Ablative fractionated lasers are perhaps the best balance for darker skin. These include the 10 600-nm fractional carbon dioxide laser, the 2940-nm erbium:YAG laser, and the 2700-nm Er:YSGG laser. They improve downtime over nonfractionated lasers and still have moderate power to resurface mild skin laxity and rhytids.62 There is still risk of dyspigmentation; however, and they should be used with caution in type VI skin.62 Finally, other energy-based therapies including RF and IFUS seem to be safe in darker skin.34,67

Discussion

Advances in energy-based technology for facial rejuvenation over the past decade focus primarily on reducing the adverse effect profile and decreasing downtime while trying to achieve effective results (Table 2 and Table 3). Full-field ablative resurfacing continues to lead to superior results among energy-based therapies for patients with moderate photoaging; however, patients must be counselled about longer downtimes and higher risk of adverse effects.16 More modest improvements are seen in fractionated lasers, with shorter down time.11,13 Fractionated lasers show significant promise in scar remodeling for both acne and surgical scars and can be used safely with minimal downtime in most patients.43,44,46,48,49 Finally, newer techniques in ultrasonographic therapy and radiofrequency energy–based therapy have promise in improving skin laxity with less downtime, but studies are needed to characterize long-term benefit.33,35,36,39

With the advent of fractionated lasers and IPL therapy, improvements in mild photoaging are seen even in combination therapy with minimal risk for adverse effects and almost no downtime.2729 More treatments are generally required to achieve satisfactory results. This safety profile makes these lasers optimal for patients with melasma or with ethnic skin. Similar risks do remain with both hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation, to a lesser degree, and the patient should be counselled appropriately.5759

Limitations

This review has several limitations. First, we restricted our search to the past 5 years, with few exceptions. We tried to limit our search to reports of patients receiving only energy-based therapy, excluding many, but not all, articles that included other types of therapy. We recognize that the articles reviewed were extremely heterogeneous in their method and type of treatment. No uniform treatment exists for any particular problem examined, increasing the risk of bias in reviewing these studies. Finally, many studies do not possess a high level of evidence and those that do are underpowered. We recognize the difficulty in performing a high-power, randomized study in cosmetic literature.

Conclusions

This review carefully assesses the current energy-based facial rejuvenation techniques in the facial plastic surgeon’s armamentarium. Nonsurgical facial rejuvenation technology has rapidly expanded over the past 5 years. The focus of this technology is shifting to carefully balance minimal risks and downtime while maximizing outcomes. Patients should be informed about the benefits, adverse effects, duration of effect, and need for further treatments. An informed decision must be made between the facial plastic surgeon and their patients as to the appropriate treatment. Many of these technologies are new, and further study is required to further elucidate optimal treatments for all conditions regarding photoaging.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Christopher J. Britt, MD, Division of Otolaryngology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, Room K4-721, Madison, WI 53705 (cbritt4@gmail.com).

Accepted for Publication: August 22, 2016.

Published Online: December 1, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1435

Author Contributions: Both authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Both authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Britt.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.

Statistical analysis: Britt.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Britt.

Study supervision: Marcus.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

References
1.
Anderson  RR, Parrish  JA.  Selective photothermolysis: precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science. 1983;220(4596):524-527.
PubMedArticle
2.
Manstein  D, Herron  GS, Sink  RK, Tanner  H, Anderson  RR.  Fractional photothermolysis: a new concept for cutaneous remodeling using microscopic patterns of thermal injury. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;34(5):426-438.
PubMedArticle
3.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/. Accessed February 28, 2016.
4.
Rhee  JS, Sullivan  CD, Frank  DO, Kimbell  JS, Garcia  GJ.  A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014;16(3):219-225.
PubMedArticle
5.
Triana  L, Cuadros  SC, Triana  C, Barbato  C, Zambrano  M.  Laser resurfacing for Latin skins: the experience with 665 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39(4):582-588.
PubMedArticle
6.
El-Domyati  M, Abd-El-Raheem  T, Abdel-Wahab  H,  et al.  Fractional versus ablative erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser resurfacing for facial rejuvenation: an objective evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(1):103-112.
PubMedArticle
7.
Cohen  JL.  Perioral rejuvenation with ablative erbium resurfacing. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(11):1363-1366.
PubMed
8.
Hantash  BM, Bedi  VP, Chan  KF, Zachary  CB.  Ex vivo histological characterization of a novel ablative fractional resurfacing device. Lasers Surg Med. 2007;39(2):87-95.
PubMedArticle
9.
Tierney  EP, Hanke  CW.  Fractionated carbon dioxide laser treatment of photoaging: prospective study in 45 patients and review of the literature. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(9):1279-1290.
PubMedArticle
10.
Shamsaldeen  O, Peterson  JD, Goldman  MP.  The adverse events of deep fractional CO(2): a retrospective study of 490 treatments in 374 patients. Lasers Surg Med. 2011;43(6):453-456.
PubMedArticle
11.
Rhie  JW, Shim  JS, Choi  WS.  A pilot study of skin resurfacing using the 2,790-nm erbium:YSGG laser system. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42(1):52-58.
PubMedArticle
12.
El-Domyati  M, Abd-El-Raheem  T, Medhat  W, Abdel-Wahab  H, Al Anwer  M.  Multiple fractional erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser sessions for upper facial rejuvenation: clinical and histological implications and expectations. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2014;13(1):30-37.
PubMedArticle
13.
Khatri  KA, Mahoney  D, Hakam  L.  High-fluence fractional treatment of photodamaged facial skin using a 2940 nm erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):260-266.
PubMedArticle
14.
Luebberding  S, Alexiades-Armenakas  MR.  Fractional, nonablative Q-switched 1,064-nm neodymium YAG laser to rejuvenate photoaged skin: a pilot case series. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(11):1300-1304.
PubMed
15.
Hong  JS, Park  SY, Seo  KK,  et al.  Long pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser treatment for wrinkle reduction and skin laxity: evaluation of new parameters. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(9):e345-e350.
PubMedArticle
16.
Gold  MH, Sensing  W, Biron  J.  Fractional Q-switched 1,064-nm laser for the treatment of photoaged-photodamaged skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(2):69-76.
PubMedArticle
17.
Jun  HJ, Kim  SM, Choi  WJ, Cho  SH, Lee  JD, Kim  HS.  A split-face, evaluator-blind randomized study on the early effects of Q-switched Nd:YAG laser versus Er:YAG micropeel in light solar lentigines in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(2):83-88.
PubMedArticle
18.
Clementoni  MT, Lavagno  R, Munavalli  G.  A new multi-modal fractional ablative CO2 laser for wrinkle reduction and skin resurfacing. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):244-252.
PubMedArticle
19.
Cohen  JL, Ross  EV.  Combined fractional ablative and nonablative laser resurfacing treatment: a split-face comparative study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12(2):175-178.
PubMed
20.
Walgrave  SE, Kist  DA, Noyaner-Turley  A, Zelickson  BD.  Minimally ablative resurfacing with the confluent 2,790 nm erbium:YSGG laser: a pilot study on safety and efficacy. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(2):103-111.
PubMedArticle
21.
Goldberg  DJ, Cutler  KB.  Nonablative treatment of rhytids with intense pulsed light. Lasers Surg Med. 2000;26(2):196-200.
PubMedArticle
22.
Bitter  PH.  Noninvasive rejuvenation of photodamaged skin using serial, full-face intense pulsed light treatments. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26(9):835-842.
PubMedArticle
23.
Sadick  NS, Weiss  R, Kilmer  S, Bitter  P.  Photorejuvenation with intense pulsed light: results of a multi-center study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2004;3(1):41-49.
PubMed
24.
Fang  L, Gold  MH, Huang  L.  Melasma-like hyperpigmentation induced by intense pulsed light treatment in Chinese individuals. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16(6):296-302.
PubMedArticle
25.
Chung  JY, Choi  M, Lee  JH, Cho  S, Lee  JH.  Pulse in pulse intense pulsed light for melasma treatment: a pilot study. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(2):162-168.
PubMedArticle
26.
Yun  WJ, Lee  SM, Han  JS,  et al.  A prospective, split-face, randomized study of the efficacy and safety of a novel fractionated intense pulsed light treatment for melasma in Asians. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(5):259-266.
PubMedArticle
27.
Chan  CS, Saedi  N, Mickle  C, Dover  JS.  Combined treatment for facial rejuvenation using an optimized pulsed light source followed by a fractional non-ablative laser. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45(7):405-409.
PubMedArticle
28.
Kearney  C, Brew  D.  Single-session combination treatment with intense pulsed light and nonablative fractional photothermolysis: a split-face study. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(7, pt 1):1002-1009.
PubMedArticle
29.
Tao  L, Wu  J, Qian  H,  et al.  Intense pulsed light, near infrared pulsed light, and fractional laser combination therapy for skin rejuvenation in Asian subjects: a prospective multi-center study in China. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(7):1977-1983.
PubMedArticle
30.
Bae  MI, Park  JM, Jeong  KH, Lee  MH, Shin  MK.  Effectiveness of low-fluence and short-pulse intense pulsed light in the treatment of melasma: a randomized study. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(6):292-295.
PubMedArticle
31.
Alexiades-Armenakas  M, Rosenberg  D, Renton  B, Dover  J, Arndt  K.  Blinded, randomized, quantitative grading comparison of minimally invasive, fractional radiofrequency and surgical face-lift to treat skin laxity. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(4):396-405.
PubMedArticle
32.
Laubach  HJ, Makin  IR, Barthe  PG, Slayton  MH, Manstein  D.  Intense focused ultrasound: evaluation of a new treatment modality for precise microcoagulation within the skin. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34(5):727-734.
PubMed
33.
Lee  HS, Jang  WS, Cha  YJ,  et al.  Multiple pass ultrasound tightening of skin laxity of the lower face and neck. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(1):20-27.
PubMedArticle
34.
Harris  MO, Sundaram  HA.  Safety of microfocused ultrasound with visualization in patients with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes III to VI. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(5):355-357.
PubMedArticle
35.
Oni  G, Hoxworth  R, Teotia  S, Brown  S, Kenkel  JM.  Evaluation of a microfocused ultrasound system for improving skin laxity and tightening in the lower face. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(7):1099-1110.
PubMedArticle
36.
Suh  DH, Oh  YJ, Lee  SJ,  et al.  A intense-focused ultrasound tightening for the treatment of infraorbital laxity. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(6):290-295.
PubMedArticle
37.
Fabi  SG, Goldman  MP.  Retrospective evaluation of micro-focused ultrasound for lifting and tightening the face and neck. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(5):569-575.
PubMedArticle
38.
Lee  HJ, Lee  KR, Park  JY, Yoon  MS, Lee  SE.  The efficacy and safety of intense focused ultrasound in the treatment of enlarged facial pores in Asian skin. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26(1):73-77.
PubMedArticle
39.
Nelson  AA, Beynet  D, Lask  GP.  A novel non-invasive radiofrequency dermal heating device for skin tightening of the face and neck. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2015;17(6):307-312.
PubMedArticle
40.
Bloom  BS, Emer  J, Goldberg  DJ.  Assessment of safety and efficacy of a bipolar fractionated radiofrequency device in the treatment of photodamaged skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(5):208-211.
PubMedArticle
41.
Taub  AF, Tucker  RD, Palange  A.  Facial tightening with an advanced 4-MHz monopolar radiofrequency device. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(11):1288-1294.
PubMed
42.
Tierney  EP.  Treatment of acne scarring using a dual-spot-size ablative fractionated carbon dioxide laser: review of the literature. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(7):945-961.
PubMedArticle
43.
Hedelund  L, Haak  CS, Togsverd-Bo  K, Bogh  MK, Bjerring  P, Haedersdal  M.  Fractional CO2 laser resurfacing for atrophic acne scars: a randomized controlled trial with blinded response evaluation. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(6):447-452.
PubMedArticle
44.
You  HJ, Kim  DW, Yoon  ES, Park  SH.  Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(4):e87-e95.
PubMedArticle
45.
Alster  TS, Tanzi  EL, Lazarus  M.  The use of fractional laser photothermolysis for the treatment of atrophic scars. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(3):295-299.
PubMed
46.
Lee  SJ, Kang  JM, Chung  WS, Kim  YK, Kim  HS.  Ablative non-fractional lasers for atrophic facial acne scars: a new modality of erbium:YAG laser resurfacing in Asians. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(2):615-619.
PubMedArticle
47.
Keaney  TC, Tanzi  E, Alster  T.  Comparison of 532 nm potassium titanyl phosphate laser and 595 nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of erythematous surgical scars: a randomized, controlled, open-label study. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(1):70-76.
PubMedArticle
48.
Shin  JU, Gantsetseg  D, Jung  JY, Jung  I, Shin  S, Lee  JH.  Comparison of non-ablative and ablative fractional laser treatments in a postoperative scar study. Lasers Surg Med. 2014;46(10):741-749.
PubMedArticle
49.
Kim  DH, Ryu  HJ, Choi  JE, Ahn  HH, Kye  YC, Seo  SH.  A comparison of the scar prevention effect between carbon dioxide fractional laser and pulsed dye laser in surgical scars. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(9):973-978.
PubMedArticle
50.
Goldman  MP, Gold  MH, Palm  MD,  et al.  Sequential treatment with triple combination cream and intense pulsed light is more efficacious than sequential treatment with an inactive (control) cream and intense pulsed light in patients with moderate to severe melasma. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(2):224-233.
PubMedArticle
51.
Figueiredo Souza  L, Trancoso Souza  S.  Single-session intense pulsed light combined with stable fixed-dose triple combination topical therapy for the treatment of refractory melasma. Dermatol Ther. 2012;25(5):477-480.
PubMedArticle
52.
Kroon  MW, Wind  BS, Beek  JF,  et al.  Nonablative 1550-nm fractional laser therapy versus triple topical therapy for the treatment of melasma: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(3):516-523.
PubMedArticle
53.
Jalaly  NY, Valizadeh  N, Barikbin  B, Yousefi  M.  Low-power fractional CO₂ laser versus low-fluence Q-switch 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser for treatment of melasma: a randomized, controlled, split-face study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15(4):357-363.
PubMedArticle
54.
Wattanakrai  P, Mornchan  R, Eimpunth  S.  Low-fluence Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (1,064 nm) laser for the treatment of facial melasma in Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(1):76-87.
PubMedArticle
55.
Kar  HK, Gupta  L, Chauhan  A.  A comparative study on efficacy of high and low fluence Q-switched Nd:YAG laser and glycolic acid peel in melasma. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2012;78(2):165-171.
PubMedArticle
56.
Park  KY, Kim  DH, Kim  HK, Li  K, Seo  SJ, Hong  CK.  A randomized, observer-blinded, comparison of combined 1064-nm Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser plus 30% glycolic acid peel vs. laser monotherapy to treat melasma. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2011;36(8):864-870.
PubMedArticle
57.
Vachiramon  V, Sirithanabadeekul  P, Sahawatwong  S.  Low-fluence Q-switched Nd: YAG 1064-nm laser and intense pulsed light for the treatment of melasma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(7):1339-1346.
PubMedArticle
58.
Yun  WJ, Moon  HR, Lee  MW, Choi  JH, Chang  SE.  Combination treatment of low-fluence 1,064-nm Q-switched Nd: YAG laser with novel intense pulse light in Korean melasma patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(8):842-850.
PubMedArticle
59.
Passeron  T, Fontas  E, Kang  HY, Bahadoran  P, Lacour  JP, Ortonne  JP.  Melasma treatment with pulsed-dye laser and triple combination cream: a prospective, randomized, single-blind, split-face study. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(9):1106-1108.
PubMedArticle
60.
Hong  SP, Han  SS, Choi  SJ,  et al.  Split-face comparative study of 1550 nm fractional photothermolysis and trichloroacetic acid 15% chemical peeling for facial melasma in Asian skin. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(2):81-86.
PubMedArticle
61.
Wind  BS, Kroon  MW, Meesters  AA,  et al.  Non-ablative 1,550 nm fractional laser therapy versus triple topical therapy for the treatment of melasma: a randomized controlled split-face study. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42(7):607-612.
PubMedArticle
62.
Woolery-Lloyd  H, Viera  MH, Valins  W.  Laser therapy in black skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2011;19(2):405-416.
PubMedArticle
63.
Alexis  AF.  Lasers and light-based therapies in ethnic skin: treatment options and recommendations for Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(suppl 3):91-97.
PubMedArticle
64.
Rossi  AM, Perez  MI.  Laser therapy in Latino skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2011;19(2):389-403.
PubMedArticle
65.
Carniol  PJ, Woolery-Lloyd  H, Zhao  AS, Murray  K.  Laser treatment for ethnic skin. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2010;18(1):105-110.
PubMedArticle
66.
Doherty  SD, Doherty  CB, Markus  JS, Markus  RF.  A paradigm for facial skin rejuvenation. Facial Plast Surg. 2009;25(4):245-251.
PubMedArticle
67.
Man  J, Goldberg  DJ.  Safety and efficacy of fractional bipolar radiofrequency treatment in Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(4):179-183.
PubMedArticle
×