Clinical comparison of four hair removal lasers and light sources

Amin, Snehal P.; Goldberg, David J.

doi:10.1080/14764170600717902

Cited by 57 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in contrast to previous studies, which have shown broadly similar levels of efficacy for hair removal with both alexandrite lasers and intense pulsed light systems. In one of the few reported direct comparisons, Amin and Goldberg [24] compared hair removal from the back or thigh using a GentleLase alexandrite laser, a Palomar Starlux IPL (incorporating two different filter settings) and a Lumenis Lightsheer diode laser and found that there were no significant differences between hair count reduction between the systems. It is possible that the increased rate of facial hair growth, especially in women with PCOS, may amplify differences between the two systems in our patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is despite using higher fluences on the IPL side than on the alexandrite side: mean fluences of 42 and 30 J/cm 2 were used respectively. Previous studies have found hair reductions using IPL systems to vary between 33% and 80.2%, with the improvement lasting up to 30 months following treatment [19][20][21][22][23][24]. The Lumina IPL resulted in mean hair count reductions of 21% at 1 and 3 months follow-up and 27% at 6 months follow-up.…”

Section: Hair Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomised, split‐face comparison of facial hair removal with the alexandrite laser and intense pulsed light system

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The alexandrite laser resulted in significantly longer hair-free intervals, a larger reduction in hair counts and greater patient satisfaction than the IPL and appeared to be more effective in this patient group. It is clear from the results in this study that the GentleLase alexandrite laser is more effective at reducing facial hirsutism in women with PCOS than the Lumina IPL. It is probable that this is due to the specific wavelength, short pulse duration and single pulse delivery of the GentleLase alexandrite laser, resulting in more follicular destruction than the IPL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hair Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised, split‐face comparison of facial hair removal with the alexandrite laser and intense pulsed light system

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The incidence of side effects was significantly higher after diode laser treatment (P ¼ 0.0001). In a CT, Amin and Goldberg [14] evaluated the efficacy of an IPL device (red filter), an IPL device (yellow filter), a 810 nm diode laser, and a 755 nm alexandrite laser in patients (n ¼ 10) with unwanted hair on the back or thigh. Hair counts at 1, 3, and 6 months after the second treatment showed a significant decrease in hair counts ($50%) for all light devices (no statistical difference).…”

Section: Hair Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intense pulsed light (IPL): A review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices use flashlamps and bandpass filters to emit polychromatic incoherent high-intensity pulsed light of determined wavelength spectrum, fluence, and pulse duration. Similar to lasers, the basic principle of IPL devices is a more or less selective thermal damage of the target. The combination of prescribed wavelengths, fluences, pulse durations, and pulse intervals facilitates the treatment of a wide spectrum of skin conditions. Objective: To summarize the physics of IPL, to provide guidance for the practical use of IPL devices, and to discuss the current literature on IPL in the treatment of unwanted hair growth, vascular lesions, pigmented lesions, acne vulgaris, and photodamaged skin and as a light source for PDT and skin rejuvenation. Methods: A systematic search of several electronic databases, including Medline and PubMed and the authors experience on intense pulsed light. Results: Numerous trials show the effectiveness and compatibility of IPL devices. Conclusion: Most comparative trials attest IPLs similar effectiveness to lasers (level of evidence: 2b to 4, depending on the indication). However, large controlled and blinded comparative trials with an extended follow-up period are necessary. Lasers Surg. Med. 42:93-104, 2010.

show abstract

“…Amin and Goldberg performed a recent comparison study in 2006 comparing the decrease in hair counts with four devices: (1) an IPL with a red filter: Palomar, Starlux RS, 65 J/cm 2 ; (2) an IPL with a yellow filter: Palomar, Starlux Y, 35 J/ cm 2 ; (3) an 810-nm diode laser: Lumenis, Lightsheer, 28 J/cm 2 ; and (4) a 755-nm alexandrite laser: Candela, Gentlelase, 18 J/cm 2 (42). A total of 10 patients were treated twice with each device on the back and hair counts were taken at 1, 3 and 6 months after the final treatment.…”

Section: Comparison Of Laser and Ipl Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser hair removal pearls

Tierney

Goldberg

2008

Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of lasers and light devices are now available for the treatment of unwanted hair. The goal of laser hair removal is to damage stem cells in the bulge of the follicle through the targeting of melanin, the endogenous chromophore for laser and light devices utilized to remove hair. The competing chromophores in the skin and hair, oxyhemoglobin and water, have a decreased absorption between 690 nm and 1000 nm, thus making this an ideal range for laser and light sources. Pearls of laser hair removal are presented in this review, focusing on four areas of recent development: 1 treatment of blond, white and gray hair; 2 paradoxical hypertrichosis; 3 laser hair removal in children; and 4 comparison of lasers and IPL. Laser and light-based technologies to remove hair represents one of the most exciting areas where discoveries by dermatologists have led to novel treatment approaches. It is likely that in the next decade, continued advancements in this field will bring us closer to the development of a more permanent and painless form of hair removal.

show abstract

Clinical comparison of four hair removal lasers and light sources

Abstract: Although hair removal with commonly used systems is, as expected, highly effective, treatment with light-based devices can cause less pain, yet show efficacy similar to laser systems.

Cited by 57 publications

References 4 publications

A randomised, split‐face comparison of facial hair removal with the alexandrite laser and intense pulsed light system

A randomised, split‐face comparison of facial hair removal with the alexandrite laser and intense pulsed light system

Intense pulsed light (IPL): A review

Laser hair removal pearls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About