Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Acne scars are common and cause cosmetic problems. There is a multitude of treatment options for acne scars, including dermabrasion, chemical peeling, and fillers, but the advent of laser technology has greatly improved the treatment of acne scars. Although several laser systems are available, studies comparing their efficacy are limited. This study compares the results of treatments using resurfacing (carbon dioxide, CO2; erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, Er:YAG) versus fractional (nonablative fractional laser, NAFL; ablative fractional laser, AFL) lasers. Methods A retrospective photographic analysis of 58 patients who underwent laser treatment for facial atrophic acne scars was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by six blinded investigators with a scale graded from 0 to 10. Adverse events were also noted. Results Mean improvement scores of the CO2, Er:YAG, NAFL, and AFL groups were 6.0, 5.8, 2.2, and 5.2, respectively. The NAFL group showed a significantly lower score than the other groups. The mean number of treatments was significantly greater in the fractional laser groups than in the resurfacing laser groups. The resurfacing laser groups had a prolonged recovery period and high risk of complications. The Er:YAG laser caused less erythema or pigmentation compared to the CO2 laser. Conclusions Although the CO2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and AFL improved the acne scars, the CO2 laser had a greater downtime. Three consecutive AFL treatments are as effective as a single treatment with resurfacing lasers, with shorter social downtime periods and less adverse effects.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e87-e95
JournalJournal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
Volume69
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Acne Vulgaris
Cicatrix
Lasers
Gas Lasers
Erbium
Solid-State Lasers
Therapeutics
Dermabrasion
Pigmentation
Erythema
Carbon Dioxide
Cosmetics
Research Personnel
Technology

Keywords

  • Ablative fractional laser
  • Acne scar
  • Laser resurfacing
  • Nonablative fractional laser

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{b22303c2903242a595cb665ec364d6f8,
title = "Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers",
abstract = "Background Acne scars are common and cause cosmetic problems. There is a multitude of treatment options for acne scars, including dermabrasion, chemical peeling, and fillers, but the advent of laser technology has greatly improved the treatment of acne scars. Although several laser systems are available, studies comparing their efficacy are limited. This study compares the results of treatments using resurfacing (carbon dioxide, CO2; erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, Er:YAG) versus fractional (nonablative fractional laser, NAFL; ablative fractional laser, AFL) lasers. Methods A retrospective photographic analysis of 58 patients who underwent laser treatment for facial atrophic acne scars was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by six blinded investigators with a scale graded from 0 to 10. Adverse events were also noted. Results Mean improvement scores of the CO2, Er:YAG, NAFL, and AFL groups were 6.0, 5.8, 2.2, and 5.2, respectively. The NAFL group showed a significantly lower score than the other groups. The mean number of treatments was significantly greater in the fractional laser groups than in the resurfacing laser groups. The resurfacing laser groups had a prolonged recovery period and high risk of complications. The Er:YAG laser caused less erythema or pigmentation compared to the CO2 laser. Conclusions Although the CO2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and AFL improved the acne scars, the CO2 laser had a greater downtime. Three consecutive AFL treatments are as effective as a single treatment with resurfacing lasers, with shorter social downtime periods and less adverse effects.",
keywords = "Ablative fractional laser, Acne scar, Laser resurfacing, Nonablative fractional laser",
author = "Hijin You and Deok-Woo Kim and Yoon, {Eul Sik} and Park, {Seung Ha}",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.bjps.2015.12.012",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "e87--e95",
journal = "Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery",
issn = "1748-6815",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars

T2 - Resurfacing and fractional lasers

AU - You, Hijin

AU - Kim, Deok-Woo

AU - Yoon, Eul Sik

AU - Park, Seung Ha

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Background Acne scars are common and cause cosmetic problems. There is a multitude of treatment options for acne scars, including dermabrasion, chemical peeling, and fillers, but the advent of laser technology has greatly improved the treatment of acne scars. Although several laser systems are available, studies comparing their efficacy are limited. This study compares the results of treatments using resurfacing (carbon dioxide, CO2; erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, Er:YAG) versus fractional (nonablative fractional laser, NAFL; ablative fractional laser, AFL) lasers. Methods A retrospective photographic analysis of 58 patients who underwent laser treatment for facial atrophic acne scars was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by six blinded investigators with a scale graded from 0 to 10. Adverse events were also noted. Results Mean improvement scores of the CO2, Er:YAG, NAFL, and AFL groups were 6.0, 5.8, 2.2, and 5.2, respectively. The NAFL group showed a significantly lower score than the other groups. The mean number of treatments was significantly greater in the fractional laser groups than in the resurfacing laser groups. The resurfacing laser groups had a prolonged recovery period and high risk of complications. The Er:YAG laser caused less erythema or pigmentation compared to the CO2 laser. Conclusions Although the CO2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and AFL improved the acne scars, the CO2 laser had a greater downtime. Three consecutive AFL treatments are as effective as a single treatment with resurfacing lasers, with shorter social downtime periods and less adverse effects.

AB - Background Acne scars are common and cause cosmetic problems. There is a multitude of treatment options for acne scars, including dermabrasion, chemical peeling, and fillers, but the advent of laser technology has greatly improved the treatment of acne scars. Although several laser systems are available, studies comparing their efficacy are limited. This study compares the results of treatments using resurfacing (carbon dioxide, CO2; erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, Er:YAG) versus fractional (nonablative fractional laser, NAFL; ablative fractional laser, AFL) lasers. Methods A retrospective photographic analysis of 58 patients who underwent laser treatment for facial atrophic acne scars was performed. Clinical improvement was assessed by six blinded investigators with a scale graded from 0 to 10. Adverse events were also noted. Results Mean improvement scores of the CO2, Er:YAG, NAFL, and AFL groups were 6.0, 5.8, 2.2, and 5.2, respectively. The NAFL group showed a significantly lower score than the other groups. The mean number of treatments was significantly greater in the fractional laser groups than in the resurfacing laser groups. The resurfacing laser groups had a prolonged recovery period and high risk of complications. The Er:YAG laser caused less erythema or pigmentation compared to the CO2 laser. Conclusions Although the CO2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and AFL improved the acne scars, the CO2 laser had a greater downtime. Three consecutive AFL treatments are as effective as a single treatment with resurfacing lasers, with shorter social downtime periods and less adverse effects.

KW - Ablative fractional laser

KW - Acne scar

KW - Laser resurfacing

KW - Nonablative fractional laser

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957402045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957402045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.12.012

DO - 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.12.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 26880620

AN - SCOPUS:84957402045

VL - 69

SP - e87-e95

JO - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

JF - Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery

SN - 1748-6815

IS - 4

ER -