The sensitization potential of sunscreen after ablative fractional skin resurfacing using modified human repeated insult patch test

Boonchai, Waranya; Sathaworawong, Angkana; Wongpraparut, Chanisada; Wanitphakdeedecha, Rungsima

doi:10.3109/09546634.2014.998608

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals of any skin type 4. Individuals free of any systemic, dermatological disorder, or other medical issues Experimental design of HRIPT studies [4][5][6][7] Induction phase…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A score on this scale was assigned following every application of a test material (Figure 2). [5][6][7] The definitions of evaluated skin response Edema: definite swelling Papules: many small, red, solid elevations; surface of reaction has granular feeling Vesicles: small circumscribed elevations having translucent surfaces so that fluid is visible (blister-like); vesicles are no larger than 0.5 cm in diameter Bullae : vesicles with a diameter > 0.5 cm; vesicles may coalesce to form one or a few large blisters that fill the patch site…”

Section: Challenge Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I

Bunman¹,

Dumavibhat²,

Chinjarernpan³

et al. 2020

bkkmedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, Bunman et al., 1 discovered and developed cream extraction from the head of fish cartilage. In 2015, this material has been added to silver sulfadiazine for accelerate and facilitate wound healing and to promote collagen synthesis. In 2016, Bunman et al., 2 studied liver and kidney toxicity in rats receiving cream extraction from fish cartilage. This result demonstrated that cream extracted from fish cartilage accelerated and facilitated wound healing without causing toxic effects to the liver and kidney in rats in long term use.In 2018, Bunman 3 formulated a new serum for facial wrinkle relief and to promote collagen synthesis. The study demonstrated that this serum has accelerated collagen synthesis and low potential skin sensitization in rat models. In 2019, Bunman developed and formulated a new cream for facial care, Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I. Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I is composed of many active ingredients to reduce wrinkles, to promote facial whitening and collagen synthesis. However, this product hasn't been investigated for potential skin sensitization in humans.The aim of this study is to evaluate potential skin sensitization of applied Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I using modified HRIPT.

show abstract

“…Individuals of any skin type 4. Individuals free of any systemic, dermatological disorder, or other medical issues Experimental design of HRIPT studies [4][5][6][7] Induction phase…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenge Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I

Bunman¹,

Dumavibhat²,

Chinjarernpan³

et al. 2020

bkkmedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their respective adverse events were reported as 0%, 22.7%, 0%, and 10% of patients (see Table 1). The first two utilized Er:YSGG and Er:YAG lasers, respectively, with the latter two studying fractional Chan et al, 16 Marini et al, 17 Boonchai et al, 18 and Trelles et al 19 studied the use of ablative lasers for facial resurfacing enrolling 9, 10, 60, and 102 patients, respectively. Adverse events were reported at a rate of 11.1%, 20%, 66.7%(AFR)/30% (NAFL), and 7.8% of patients, respectively (see Table 1).…”

Section: Prospective Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes and adverse effects of ablative vs nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing: A systematic review of 1093 patients

Mirza

Khatri

2020

Dermatologic Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally believed that ablative laser therapies result in prolonged healing and greater adverse events when compared with nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing. To evaluate the efficacy of ablative laser use for skin resurfacing and adverse events as a consequence of treatment in comparison to other modalities, a PRISMA‐compliant systematic review (Systematic Review Registration Number: 204016) of twelve electronic databases was conducted for the terms “ablative laser” and “skin resurfacing” from March 2002 until July 2020. Studies included meta‐analyses, randomized control trials, cohort studies, and case reports to facilitate evaluation of the data. All articles were evaluated for bias. The search strategy produced 34 studies. Of 1093 patients included in the studies of interest, adverse events were reported in a total of 106 patients (9.7%). Higher rates of adverse events were described in nonablative therapies (12.2% ± 2.19%, 31 events) when compared with ablative therapy (8.28% ± 2.46%, 81 events). 147 patients (13.4%) reported no side effects, 68 (6.22%) reported expected, transient self‐resolving events, and five (0.046%) presented with hypertrophic scarring. Excluding transient events, ablative lasers had fewer complications overall when compared with nonablative lasers (2.56% ± 2.19% vs 7.48% ± 3.29%). This systematic review suggests ablative laser use for skin resurfacing is a safe and effective modality to treat a range of pathologies from photodamage and acne scars to hidradenitis suppurativa and posttraumatic scarring from basal cell carcinoma excision. Further studies are needed, but these results suggest that ablative lasers are a superior, safe, and effective modality to treat damaged skin.

show abstract

“…Regarding contact allergy attributed to octocrylene, some case reports and positive patch test studies in both adults and children can be found in the scientific literature …”

Section: Cutaneous Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding contact allergy attributed to octocrylene, some case reports and positive patch test studies in both adults and children can be found in the scientific literature. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] In particular, a recent study conducted in Germany showed that among 2577 patients who were patch-tested with octocrylene at 10% in petrolatum, only two weak positive reactions were reportedi.e. 0.08%.…”

Section: Sensitization and Photosensitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the safety of octocrylene used as an ultraviolet filter in cosmetics

Berardesca

Zuberbier

Viera³

et al. 2019

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Octocrylene or octocrilene is an organic ultraviolet (UV) filter which absorbs mainly UVB radiation and short UVA wavelengths. It is used in various cosmetic products to either provide an appropriate sun protection factor in sunscreen products or to protect cosmetic formulations from UV radiation. There is no discussion that UV filters are beneficial ingredients in cosmetics since they protect from skin cancer, but octocrylene has been recently incriminated to potentially induce adverse effects on the endocrine system in addition to having allergic and/or photoallergic potential. However, the substance has the advantage to work synergistically with other filters allowing a beneficial broad photoprotection, e.g. it stabilizes the UVA filter avobenzone (i.e. butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane). Like all chemicals used in cosmetics, the safety profile of octocrylene is constantly under assessment by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) since it has been registered according to the European regulation Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. Summaries of safety data of octocrylene are publicly available on the ECHA website. This review aims to present the main safety data from the ECHA website, as well as those reported in scientific articles from peer‐reviewed journals. The available data show that octocrylene does not have any endocrine disruption potential. It is a rare sensitizer, photocontact allergy is more frequent and it is considered consecutive to photosensitization to ketoprofen. Based on these results, octocrylene can be considered as safe when used as a UV filter in cosmetic products at a concentration up to 10%.

show abstract

The sensitization potential of sunscreen after ablative fractional skin resurfacing using modified human repeated insult patch test

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I

Evaluation of Potential Skin Sensitization of Humans Receiving Bright and Firm Hybrid Emulsion I

Outcomes and adverse effects of ablative vs nonablative lasers for skin resurfacing: A systematic review of 1093 patients

Review of the safety of octocrylene used as an ultraviolet filter in cosmetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About