Comparison of the effects of 665 nm low level diode Laser Hat versus and a combination of 665 nm and 808nm low level diode Laser Scanner of hair growth in androgenic alopecia

Barikbin, Behrooz; Khodamrdi, Zeinab; Kholoosi, Leila; Akhgri, Mohammad Reza; Abbasi, Majid Haj; Hajabbasi, Mojgan; Razzaghi, Zahra; Akbarpour, Samaneh

doi:10.1080/14764172.2017.1326609

Cited by 31 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from anecdotal evidence and non-controlled studies, LLLT showed superior hair growth-promoting effects in men and women with AGA compared to the sham-operating control group in eight randomized controlled clinical trials with the end point varying from 16 to 26 weeks. LLLT devices used in these studies include (1) 655-nm laser combs [11,12]; (2) a 635-nm and 655-nm laser comb [12]; (3) a helmet using 630-nm LED, 660-nm LED, and 650-nm laser [13]; (4) a helmet using 655-nm LED and 655-nm laser [14,15]; (5) a helmet using 660-nm LED and 650-nm laser [16]; (6) a 650nm laser dome fixed in a sport-style hat [17]; and (7) a 655-nm and 808-nm laser scanner [18]. A recent systematic review and network meta-analysis, evaluating the efficacy of nonsurgical treatments for AGA, indicated that LLLT is a highly effective treatment option for AGA; however, the quality of evidence is very low as determined by the risk of bias assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-level laser therapy for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in Thai men and women: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled trial

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-level laser/light therapy (LLLT) has been increasingly used for promoting hair growth in androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Our institute developed a new home-use LLLT device, RAMACAP, with optimal penetrating energy, aiming to improve therapeutic efficacy and compliance. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the new helmet-type LLLT device in the treatment of AGA, a 24week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled clinical trial was conducted. Forty subjects with AGA (20 men and 20 women) were randomized to treat with a laser helmet (RAMACAP) or a sham helmet in the home-based setting for 24 weeks. Hair density, hair diameter, and adverse events were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 8, 16, and 24. Global photographic assessment for hair regrowth after 24 weeks of treatment was performed by investigators and subjects. Thirty-six subjects (19 in the laser group and 17 in the sham group) completed the study. At week 24, the laser helmet was significantly superior to the sham device for increasing hair density and hair diameter (p = 0.002 and p = 0.009, respectively) and showed a significantly greater improvement in global photographic assessment by investigators and subjects. Reported side effects included temporary hair shedding and scalp pruritus. In conclusion, the novel helmet-type LLLT device appears to be an effective treatment option for AGA in both male and female patients with minimal adverse effects. However, the limitations of this study are small sample size, no long-term follow-up data, and use of inappropriate sham devices, which do not reflect the true negative control. Trial registration: http://clinicaltrials.in.th/ index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=2061, identifier TCTR20160910003.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-level laser therapy for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in Thai men and women: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled trial

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Barikbin et al [23] described the use of the red light laser hat and the red light laser scanner for treating AGA and FPHL. In this randomized, double-blinded, controlled study, a total of 90 female and male patients were divided into 3 equal groups – Group 1: patients received 655 nm red light via laser hat ( n = 30); Group 2: patients received 655 nm red laser plus 808 nm infrared laser using a laser scanner of hair growth device ( n = 30); and Group 3: patients received no laser as the control group ( n = 30).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight out of the 10 studies used sham devices as controls. Of the 2 that did not use sham devices, minoxidil was used for one treatment group [25] and the other, no treatment was given to the control group [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Safety and Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Male and Female Pattern Hair Loss: A Review of the Literature

Egger

Resnik

Aickara

et al. 2020

Skin Appendage Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pattern hair loss is the most common type of alopecia. Standard of care involves long-term use of topical medications with limited effectiveness. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has become a popular alternative treatment. Here, we examine published clinical trials to establish whether the breadth of evidence supports LLLT for pattern hair loss. Methods: A literature search was conducted within the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Trials databases to identify original articles evaluating hair regrowth following LLLT. Articles were selected based on use of 600-1,100 nm wavelengths, treatment time ≥16 weeks, and objective evaluation for hair regrowth. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials were included, of which 8 compared LLLT to sham device and 1 to no treatment. The study populations varied, with 3 studies evaluating only women. All sham-device controlled studies demonstrated statistically significant increase in hair diameter or density (p < 0.01) following LLLT. Discussion: Based on our review of the literature, LLLT appears to be effective for treating pattern hair loss in both men and women. These laser devices have good safety profiles, with only minor adverse effects reported. However, physicians should be cautious when drawing conclusions as some studies included have a relationship with industry.

show abstract

“…). Seventy‐eight, met the inclusion criteria and were included in the quantitative analysis. A total of 15 888 participants (88.1% male) were included with an average age 36.0 ± 7.3 (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty‐two studies of the 78 included in the quantitative analysis had the data necessary for a network meta‐analysis. The included trials had 2421 randomized participants, which were 64.2% male.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of non‐surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Gupta

Mays

Dotzert

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Androgenetic alopecia, or male/female pattern baldness, is the most common type of progressive hair loss disorder. The aim of this study was to review recent advances in non-surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia and identify the most effective treatments. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted of the available literature of the six most common non-surgical treatment options for treating androgenetic alopecia in both men and women; dutasteride 0.5 mg, finasteride 1 mg, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), minoxidil 2%, minoxidil 5% and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Seventy-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 22 studies had the data necessary for a network meta-analysis. Relative effects show LLLT as the superior treatment. Relative effects show PRP, finasteride 1 mg (male), finasteride 1 mg (female), minoxidil 5%, minoxidil 2% and dutasteride (male) are approximately equivalent in mean change hair count following treatment. Minoxidil 5% and minoxidil 2% reported the most drug-related adverse events (n = 45 and n = 23, respectively). The quality of evidence of minoxidil 2% vs. minoxidil 5% was high; minoxidil 5% vs. placebo was moderate; dutasteride (male) vs. placebo, finasteride (female) vs. placebo, minoxidil 2% vs. placebo and minoxidil 5% vs. LLLT was low; and finasteride (male) vs. placebo, LLLT vs. sham, PRP vs. placebo and finasteride vs. minoxidil 2% was very low. Results of this NMA indicate the emergence of novel, non-hormonal therapies as effective treatments for hair loss; however, the quality of evidence is generally low. High-quality randomized controlled trials and head-to-head trials are required to support these findings and aid in the development of more standardized protocols, particularly for PRP. Regardless, this analysis may aid physicians in clinical decision-making and highlight the variety of non-surgical hair restoration options for patients.

show abstract

Comparison of the effects of 665 nm low level diode Laser Hat versus and a combination of 665 nm and 808nm low level diode Laser Scanner of hair growth in androgenic alopecia

Abstract: Results showed a statistically significant improvement in the laser scanner of the hair growth group compared with laser hat and the control group. The study showed that treatment with new laser devise had a promising result without any observable adverse effects.

Cited by 31 publications

References 17 publications

Low-level laser therapy for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in Thai men and women: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled trial

Low-level laser therapy for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in Thai men and women: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, sham device-controlled trial

Examining the Safety and Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Male and Female Pattern Hair Loss: A Review of the Literature

Efficacy of non‐surgical treatments for androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About