Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 34990

Original article / research
Table of Contents - Year : 2016 | Month : July | Volume : 10 | Issue : 7 | Page : WC01 - WC03

Intense Pulsed light Versus 1,064 Long-Pulsed Neodymium: Yttrium–Aluminum– Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Facial Acne Vulgaris WC01-WC03

Essam Elden Mohamed, Khaled Tawfik, Mohamed Elsaie

Dr. Mohamed Elsaie,
15 Tarablos Street, Nasr City 11371, Cairo, Egypt.

Introduction: Laser and light-based procedures provide a good and safe modality for treatment of active acne lesions when used properly.

Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) versus 1,064 long-pulsed Neodymium:Yttrium–Aluminum– Garnet (Nd: YAG) in treatment of facial acne vulgaris.

Materials and Methods: Seventy four patients recruited between June 2013 and August 2014 was enrolled in this controlled, single-blind, split-face clinical trial. All participants received 3 sessions of IPL on the right side of the face and 1,064-nm Nd:YAG on the left side of the face at 4-weeks intervals. Final assessment was made by comparison of the changes in the count of inflammatory acne lesions (inflammatory papules, pustules, nodules and cyst) and non-inflammatory acne lesions (Comedones) and the acne severity score between both therapies, based on standardized photography.

Results: At the final visit, the inflammatory acne lesions were reduced on the IPL and 1,064-nm Nd:YAG treated sides by 67.1% and 70.2% respectively (p<0.05 for each), while non inflammatory acne lesions were reduced by 18.3% and 19.3% respectively (p>0.05 for each). For both therapies, there was significant difference in the improvement on inflammatory acne lesions in comparison to non-inflammatory lesions (p<0.05 for each). There was no significant difference in the efficacy of the two therapies in reducing the percentage of both types of acne lesions count from baseline to the end of the study (p>0.05 for each).

Conclusion: Both IPL and 1,064-nm Nd:YAG laser are effective in treatment of inflammatory facial acne vulgaris. There is no significant difference between the effects of both therapies on facial acne lesions.