Intense pulsed light: A promising therapy in treatment of acne vulgaris

Puttaiah, Manjunatha; Jartarka, Shishira R.

doi:10.7241/ourd.20171.2

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Puttaiah and Jartarkar showed that IPL therapy decreased AV lesions and no side effects were reported in this study. [18] This was in accordance with our results. Combination treatment of IPL with photodynamic therapy with topical 5-aminolevulinic acid showed better and more prolonged response.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness of adapalene 0.1% with intense pulsed light versus benzoyl peroxide 5% with intense pulsed light in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Acne vulgaris (AV) is one of the most common skin diseases with major psychological impacts. Hence, selecting the best treatment modality is so important; there are different ways to treat AV such as topical and systemic agents, laser, and also photodynamic therapy. In this study, we tried to assess the difference between the efficacy of combination therapy with intense pulsed light (IPL) and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) in comparison with IPL and adapalene (AD) in the treatment of the mild to moderate AV.Materials and Methods:Thirty Iranian females in reproductive age with mild to moderate acne were enrolled in this study. The left and right side of the patients were randomized to receive either AD 0.1% or BPO 5% every other day plus three sessions of monthly apart IPL in the treatment of AV. Different parameters of AV such as acne severity index (ASI), total acne lesions counting (TLC), and Acne Global Severity Scale (AGSS) were measured before, during, and after the treatments.Results:There was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with AD plus IPL (P < 0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with BP plus IPL (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI were observed between the 2 groups after treatment (P > 0.05). No significant side effects were observed in both groups.Conclusion:Our study shows that there was not any significant difference between combining IPL with either AD or BPO so we can use either one of these combinations to achieve similar efficacy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…[1617] The exact mechanism of action of IPL therapy in treatment of AV is unknown, but it may reduce Propionibacteriumacne acne proliferation and sebum production. [18]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of adapalene 0.1% with intense pulsed light versus benzoyl peroxide 5% with intense pulsed light in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Puttaiah et al reported more than 50% clearance rates in 64% of patients for acne vulgaris lesions. 17 Although the number of sessions and IPL wavelength used was similar to our study, a better result was achieved because of a higher fluence of 23-28J/cm 2 than ours of 25J/cm 2 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Efficacy and Safety of Intense Pulsed Light in Patients of Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris

Sajid¹,

Rizwan²,

Sheikh³

2022

PAFMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of IPL in patients with inflammatory Acne Vulgaris. Study Design: Quasi-experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Dermatology, Pakistan Air Force Hospital, Fazaia Medical College, Islamabad Pakistan, from Aug 2019 to Jan 2020. Methodology: Ninety patients with inflammatory facial acne were enrolled and received four Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) sessions at two weeks intervals with fluence 25J/cm2 and 420nm cut-off filter. The duration of treatment for each patient was two months. Clinical improvement was assessed using the Global Acne Grading System score (GAGs score). Results: Mean age of the patients was 18.5±3.3years, of which nine were males (10%), and 81 were females (90%). IPL was effective in 42(46.7%) patients with inflammatory acne vulgaris. The median GAGS score before treatment was 20(22–19), and after treatment was 10(12-9), with a significant p-value(<0.001). Only 8(9%) developed erythema, and 1(1%) patient developed post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Conclusions: Intense Pulsed Light was a significantly effective and safe treatment for inflammatory acne of all grades, ages,and genders.Keywords: Efficacy, Inflammatory acne vulgaris, Intense pulsed light, Safety, Treatment.

show abstract

Intense pulsed light: A promising therapy in treatment of acne vulgaris

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

The effectiveness of adapalene 0.1% with intense pulsed light versus benzoyl peroxide 5% with intense pulsed light in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study

The effectiveness of adapalene 0.1% with intense pulsed light versus benzoyl peroxide 5% with intense pulsed light in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study

Efficacy and Safety of Intense Pulsed Light in Patients of Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About