Treatment of facial photodamage with mass market topical products vs non-ablative fractional laser

METHODS: In this split-face, evaluator-blinded study, 18 subjects were randomly assigned to receive either the SSR or NFL treatments on each side of the face. For the SSR facial sides subjects followed two morning-evening regimens. On the NFL sides subjects were treated 3 times with the 1927-nm laser at 4-week intervals. Three physician evaluators were asked to rate hyperpigmentation, global photoaging, and ne lines and wrinkles for each side of the face at baseline and at 3 months using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: The SSR and NFL treatments provided comparable results for each skin attribute. Improvement from baseline was signi - cant in both treatment programs for each skin attribute. The greatest 3-month improvement for both programs was in hyperpigmentation. For global photoaging and ne lines and wrinkles, positive responses were slightly greater in the NFL than in the SSR facial sides. Subject preference for the SSR over the NFL was greatest for ne lines around the eyes, ne lines around the mouth, smooth texture, radiant complexion, and overall improvement while the NFL was preferred for skin rmness and evenness. When the study was completed5 of 18 split-face subjects decided to undergo NFR laser treatment on the non laser treated side along with using the SSR product and 13 of the 18 subjects continued to use the SSR products to their full face after the study. CONCLUSION: The mass market skin care system of the present study provides improvement in hyperpigmentation, global photoaging, and ne lines and wrinkles comparable to that of a series of treatments with a non-ablative fractional laser.