18 replies to this topic

[goku]

What are people's thoughts on such procedures which are emerging and showing fairly fast and dramatic results thus far:

ABTRACT --

A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation.

* Russell BA,
* Kellett N,
* Reilly LR.

Advanced Laser and Dermatologic Surgery Clinics PC, Beaverton, Oregon 97008, USA.

BACKGROUND: The use of visible or near infrared spectral light alone for the purpose of skin rejuvenation has been previously reported. A method of light emitting diode (LED) photo rejuvenation incorporating a combination of these wavelengths and thus compounding their distinct stimulation of cellular components is proposed.Objective. To assess the efficacy and local tolerability of combination light therapy in photo rejuvenation of facial skin. METHODS: Thirty-one subjects with facial rhytids received nine light therapy treatments using the Omnilux LED system. The treatments combined wavelengths of 633 nm and 830 nm with fluences of 126 J/cm(2) and 66 J/cm(2) respectively. Improvements to the skin surface were evaluated at weeks 9 and 12 by profilometry performed on periorbital casts. Additional outcome measures included assessments of clinical photography and patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Key profilometry results Sq, Sa, Sp and St showed significant differences at week 12 follow-up; 52% of subjects showed a 25%-50% improvement in photoaging scores by week 12; 81% of subjects reported a significant improvement in periorbital wrinkles on completion of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Omnilux combination red and near infrared LED therapy represents an effective and acceptable method of photo rejuvenation. Further study to optimize the parameters of treatment is required.

[Centurion]

Nice catch Kakarot.
I have been considering buying a sunbed lately and putting infrared theraputic tubes in it

[goku]

I tried the "Photon Beauty" small handheld device I got off ebay which uses pure visible red light, and after a couple weeks of use there is a definite visible improvement, and I am a tough critic, so thus far I'm remarkably impressed. Hopefully red light doesn't damage skin in any unseen way, I know blue light does a bit which they use for acne therapy.

[starr]

I tried the "Photon Beauty" small handheld device I got off ebay which uses pure visible red light, and after a couple weeks of use there is a definite visible improvement, and I am a tough critic, so thus far I'm remarkably impressed. Hopefully red light doesn't damage skin in any unseen way, I know blue light does a bit which they use for acne therapy.

In what way does the blue light damage skin?

[luminous]

I too would like to know how blue light damages skin.

The study posted by goku featured the "Omnilux" LED system, with treatments that "combined wavelengths of 633 nm and 830 nm with fluences of 126 J/cm(2) and 66 J/cm(2) respectively."

I found this $350 "DPL Therapy" light unit on the internet:

http://www.lightther...technology.html

The DPL unit is said to have two removable LED panels, with "154 - 880nm infrared LEDs & 20 - 660nm Red LEDs." Can anyone tell if this would be comparable to what was used in the study? The DPL unit seems to fall within the study's range of 633 to 830 nm, but I don't know the significance of the study's "fluences of 126 J/cm(2) and 66 J/cm(2) respecively." Anyone know?

I wonder if the DPL model might be preferable to the $300 Photon Beauty:

http://www.aaachimac...hotonbeauty.htm

The DPL panel costs $50 more, but it appears to cover a larger surface area than the Photon Beauty.

Both the DPL and the Photon beauty emit a combination of infrared and red light, which hopefully is similar to the combination of near infrared and red LED therapy used in the study.

I'm tempted to purchase one of these devices, but at $300+, I don't know if I should take a chance. Maybe someone here has more information about the home units. goku, are you still using your Photon Beauty? Could you tell us how much of a daily time commitment is (was) involved? Thanks.

[goku]

The photon beauty is just red light. Works great for me, requires maybe 10 minutes a day I'd say. I think research in this area is still kinda limited, but honestly it made the fastest and most significant dif on my skin in the shortest amount of time I've ever seen -- at least thus far, so if anybody has any other info to contribute that'd be great. I hope red light doesn't damage skin at all.

And yes, I did read blue light is mildly damaging somewhere on pubmed, don't have time to find abstract right now though. Haven't read anything about red light causing any harm, so does anyone know?

[zoolander]

Lasers Med Sci. 2005;20(1):6-10. Epub 2005 May 21.

    A single-blinded randomised controlled study to determine the efficacy of Omnilux Revive facial treatment in skin rejuvenation.

        * Bhat J,
        * Birch J,
        * Whitehurst C,
        * Lanigan SW.

    Lasercare Clinics, Birmingham Skin Centre, City Hospital NHS Trust, Dudley Road, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK.

    To determine the efficacy of Omnilux Revive facial treatment in skin rejuvenation, twenty-three volunteers received randomised 20 min treatments three times a week for three weeks to one half of their face, with the untreated side acting as control. Regular assessments were carried out, focusing on parameters of subject satisfaction, photographic assessments, skin elasticity (Cutometer) and skin hydration (Corneometer CM825). Ninety-one percent of the volunteers reported visible changes to their skin. Blinded photographic evaluation reported a clinical response in 59% of the subjects. Objective analysis failed to show statistically significant changes in skin hydration or elasticity. The Omnilux Revive LED lamp is a safe alternative non-ablative skin rejuvenation treatment.

    PMID: 15909229 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

and

J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2005 Dec;7(3-4):163-70.

    The utilization of nonthermal blue (405-425 nm) and near infrared (850-890 nm) light in aesthetic dermatology and surgery-a multicenter study.

        * Lask G,
        * Fournier N,
        * Trelles M,
        * Elman M,
        * Scheflan M,
        * Slatkine M,
        * Naimark J,
        * Harth Y.

    UCLA Medical School, Los Angeles, CA.

    BACKGROUND: A major cause of skin aging is a chronic micro-inflammation triggered by UV radiation and external pollutants. It has been demonstrated that blue light diminishes inflammatory conditions and near infrared light enhances circulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a non thermal dual wavelength -- blue (405 - 420 nm) and near infrared (850 - 900 nm) -- light source in skin rejuvenation, in the reduction of the duration of post skin resurfacing erythema and in the acceleration of healing of post surgical conditions (face lift and breast augmentation). METHODS: We have utilized a non contact, hand free dual wavelength light source (iClearXL and Clear100XL, Curelight Ltd) to treat over 60 patients and perform three controlled studies in four centers. Follow up duration was three months. Control group for photo-rejuvenation consisted of patients treated with Glycolic peeling and daily appliance of vitamin C Control group for post skin resurfacing erythema duration consisted of patients untreated by the light source and control group for post surgical healing consisted of patients untreated by the light source or treated by the light source on one side only. RESULTS: Post skin resurfacing erythema duration is reduced by 90%. The healing of post surgical conditions is substantially accelerated and discomfort is reduced. The anti aging effect of the light source includes: reduction of pore size in 90% of patients with stable results at three months follow up, enhanced skin radiance in 90% of patients with stable results at three months follow up and smoothing of fine wrinkles in 45% of patients with stable results at three months follow up. The control group showed poor results which were stable for a duration of less than one month. CONCLUSIONS: A non thermal, non contact / hand free light source emitting at 405-420 nm and 850-900 nm considerably enhances aesthetic and surgical aesthetic procedures without consuming user time.

    PMID: 16414904 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[starr]

I too would like to know how blue light damages skin. 

The study posted by goku featured the "Omnilux" LED system, with treatments that "combined wavelengths of 633 nm and 830 nm with fluences of 126 J/cm(2) and 66 J/cm(2) respectively." 

I found this $350 "DPL Therapy" light unit on the internet:

http://www.lightther...technology.html

The DPL unit is said to have two removable LED panels, with "154 - 880nm infrared LEDs & 20 - 660nm Red LEDs."  Can anyone tell if this would be comparable to what was used in the study?  The DPL unit seems to fall within the study's range of 633 to 830 nm, but I don't know the significance of the study's "fluences of 126 J/cm(2) and 66 J/cm(2) respecively."  Anyone know? 

I wonder if the DPL model might be preferable to the $300 Photon Beauty:

http://www.aaachimac...hotonbeauty.htm

The DPL panel costs $50 more, but it appears to cover a larger surface area than the Photon Beauty.

Both the DPL and the Photon beauty emit a combination of infrared and red light, which hopefully is similar to the combination of near infrared and red LED therapy used in the study.

I'm tempted to purchase one of these devices, but at $300+, I don't know if I should take a chance.  Maybe someone here has more information about the home units.  goku, are you still using your Photon Beauty?  Could you tell us how much of a daily time commitment is (was) involved?  Thanks.

I was told buy a guy who sells these things that the panels are inferior because the light mostly reflects off the face and to get a good result you need to get the device up close to the skin. Of course, he sells a handheld.

[luminous]

Thanks to all for the feedback. starr, do you know how close to the skin the light source needs to be? Also, do you know what brand was recommended by the guy you know who sells the devices? I think the panels are detachable and can be held close to the skin.

[syr_]

RESULTS: (...) The anti aging effect of the light source includes: reduction of pore size in 90% of patients with stable results at three months follow up, enhanced skin radiance in 90% of patients with stable results at three months follow up and smoothing of fine wrinkles in 45% of patients with stable results at three months follow up. (...)
    PMID: 16414904 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Impressive.

[Centurion]

Very Impressive. I am still considering the whole full blown sunbed approach. Might cost a few grand for the sunbed and a few grand for the infrared tubes, but the benefits are right there.

[goku]

Even with just my small handheld device indeed results are thus far impressive.

[starr]

Thanks to all for the feedback. starr, do you know how close to the skin the light source needs to be? Also, do you know what brand was recommended by the guy you know who sells the devices? I think the panels are detachable and can be held close to the skin.

The light source, according to that guy, should be held directly to the skin. He sells Quasar units through eBay and ledtherapeutics.com.

[starr]

Very Impressive. I am still considering the whole full blown sunbed approach. Might cost a few grand for the sunbed and a few grand for the infrared tubes, but the benefits are right there.

I had no idea there was a full body device. Did you see this somewhere online? Got any links?


I'm still wondering if the increased bloodflow to the skin is what's mostly responsible for making it look good, because skin generally looks great for a few hours after a workout. In that Cosmet study, I can't tell how long the patients were actually treated for. It says 3 months followup duration. Does that mean results were stable after 3 months of no further treatments? And how long were they treated for? It's not entirely clear...to me, at least.

[xanadu]

Why not just get a sheet of polycarbonate which is transparent but blocks UV very well and use normal light or sunlight? Seems like that would be cheaper than special bulbs and would never wear out.

[Centurion]

Starr: I just intended on buying the bulbs and fitting them to a normal UV sunbed to prevail of the full body method.

Xanadu: Fantastic method man, itll work well for most here. Sadly we get very few periods of prolonged sunshine here tho.

[xanadu]

The sheet of polycarbonate will block the UV from the special lights you buy. Most lights emit a little bit of UV and some emit a lot. The common flourescent gives off UV. Right at this moment I don't know off the top of my head of a source for the sheet or what it would cost. I'm sure it could be found and I don't think it would be too expensive if you find a good source. If you want to go first class, get the special lights that are supposed to be good for you and put the sheet of polycarbonate in front of them. Use both.

If you don't have any special lights, use ordinary ones with the sheet to block harmful radiation. Or set the sheet up outdoors and sit behind it so that you get the sun without the UV. You will get some UV around the sides unless it's enclosed. That might be a more healthful alternative to the sun worshipper who wants to get some rays.

[syr_]

I ebayed "photon beauty" and found a canadian seller offering this device for about 200 U$. Which is not bad at all considering how much treatments costs at Spas.

[curious_sle]

xanadu, i dimly remember someone selling such a setup for sunbathing. (looks kinda cheesy but is pretty much as you described. ) It's been quite a few years now though.