Comparison Study of Intense Pulsed Light Versus a Long-Pulse Pulsed Dye Laser in the Treatment of Facial Skin Rejuvenation.

Currently, various nonablative skin resurfacing techniques are being used to rejuvenate facial skin, including lasers and intense pulsed light (IPL). There are few direct comparison studies between IPLs and lasers. The objective of our study is to compare the effectiveness of intense pulsed light versus a long-pulse pulsed dye laser (LPDL) in the treatment of facial skin rejuvenation. Ten Asian patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV were enrolled in this study. One half of the face was treated with IPL (6 treatment sessions) and the other side was treated by LPDL (3 treatment sessions). An LPDL with a wavelength of 595 nm and spot size of 7 mm was used.
Utilizing the compression method, lentigines were treated using a PDL with a fluence between 9-12 J/cm2 and a pulse duration of 1.5 ms. Wrinkles were treated with fluences between 10 to 12 J/cm2 and a pulse duration of 20 ms, using a pulse-stacking technique. An IPL with a type B handpiece was used. Lentigines and wrinkles were treated with fluences between 27 to 40 J/cm2 and a pulse duration of 20 ms. The improvement of lentigines was 62.3% and 81.1% for IPL and LPDL respectively. There was no significant difference between IPL and LPDL in wrinkle reduction. There was no scarring or pigmentary change seen with either device. Both IPL and LPDL are effective for facial skin rejuvenation in Asians, but LPDL treatment is significantly better than IPL treatment in the treatment of lentigines. The use of the compression technique may allow this LPDL to be used effectively for facial rejuvenation and with fewer treatment sessions, when compared with the IPL.