Abstract
BackgroundA combination of minimally invasive modalities can induce collagen regeneration more quickly and promote the penetration of topical agents, thus promoting skin rejuvenation. In this study, we aimed to investigate the synergistic efficacy of extracellular matrix compound (ECM-C) via microneedle (MN) and radiofrequency (RF) on periorbital wrinkles.MethodA total of 25 participants with periorbital wrinkles were selected for this study. The left and right side of the periorbital area was randomly given ECM-C via MN or ECM-C via MN combined with RF. MN combined with ECM-C treatment was given 5 times at 2 weeks intervals, whereas RF treatment was given 3 times at 4-week intervals. The following items were assessed: wrinkles by VISIA® system; biophysical parameters such as skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema index, and melanin index by CK multiple probe adapter; and skin elasticity and skin thickness by DermaLab Combo® photographs were taken at the baseline and 2 weeks after the last treatment. Subjective assessments, such as Crow's Feet Grading Scale (CFGS) and Global Aesthetic International Scale (GAIS), were also recorded.ResultA total of 25 participants with an average age of 43 years participated in this trial. Periorbital wrinkles on both sides decreased after the treatment, and the side treated with ECM via MN and RF showed better improvement than the other side with ECM-C via MN alone. Skin hydration increased after the treatment on both sides. TEWL, skin erythema, and skin melanin indexes were not changed. Skin elasticity and skin thickness increased more on the side of ECM-C via MN and RF than on the other side of ECM-C via MN alone. The evaluation scores for CFGS improved on either side; however, no difference was found for CFGS and GAIS between intergroup comparisons after the treatment.ConclusionThe objective assessment of wrinkles, elasticity, and thickness of periorbital skin improved more on the side with ECM-C treatment via MN combined with RF than on the other side of ECM-C treatment via MN only. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the subjective CFGS and GAIS evaluation of the two sides.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
