Hello Dr.Pickart,

I came across to this device on the internet and am asking of your opinion about it. it sounds very interesting...

http://www.ncnproskincare.com/skin-care-products/exfoliate/photofacial.html

if anyone is using it or used it in the past, could you please post your opinion about it.

I don't know what to say except I think a certain amount of light improves skin health despite whatever the dermatologists think.

Thank you for your reply, Dr.Pickart. I also think that it might be a good idea to expose your face skin to the light for a short period of time every day, especially during the winter. However, I read few negative thoughts about it, that even 10 minutes exposure twice a day in a long term can cause more skin damage if to compare with the positive things that it does for the skin. I am thinking of buying it...but still a little unsure about long term damage.... :whew!

There are clinical and experimental data on LED stimulated cell proliferation in medicine (adjunct to chemo therapy and surgery) and the navy (wound healing and eye injuries) and by NASA on plant growth and space weightlessness and cell health.

Hi JW,
I can't find any long termclinical studies on the internet in regards to skin improvement due to LED use. The study that I found lasted for 3 months only. Have you ever used this device by yourself? I can't find anybody who did use it and can share a personal positive experience.

Thank you.

Hello Nataxa,

No, I'm not using it myself. I can't imagine myself willing to sit still or maintain the machine (my car, computers, nutrition/exercise, and garden keep me plenty busy). I only casually searched and read about LEDs and other photodynamic pulsed light or radio wave treatments for various skin conditions and not specifically for photoaging. I have not researched or followed any of these studies in depth.

LEDs are long waves that penetrate deeply into the skin but likely to be safer and more economical to use than lasers. However, the efficacy and safety of its use probably will have to be regulated and standardized for home use. What are some of the concerns you have read about the use of LEDs?

A number of our members have asked about using LED lights and SRCPs. Well, now we have a study that indicates this is a good idea..............

In vitro observations on the influence of copper peptide aids for the LED photoirradiation of fibroblast collagen synthesis.
Huang PJ, Huang YC, Su MF, Yang TY, Huang JR, Jiang CP. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007 Jun;25(3):183-90.

Biomedical Electronics Technology Division, Medical Electronics and Device Technology Center, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of Cu-GHK aids for the LED-PI on fibroblast proliferation and collagen production in vitro. BACKGROUND DATA: Light-emitting diode photoirradiation (LED-PI) and copper-glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine complex (Cu-GHK) treatment may be useful in accelerating the rate of wound healing. Red LED (625-635 nm) was used as a light source for LED-PI. In the process of wound healing, Cu-GHK was shown to be an activator of remodeling. LED-PI would maintain fibroblast activity and viability, and there would be a positive effect on type I collagen (COL1) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) production from the combination of LED-PI and Cu-GHK incorporation. METHODS: Cell activity/viability, procollagen type I C-peptide (P1CP), and bFGF were evaluated in vitro with human fibroblasts (HS68). The effects of single factors (LED-PI using 0, 1, and 2 J energy doses) or a combination of factors (LED-PI and Cu-GHK) on fibroblast viability (i.e., alamarBlue reduction), collagen production (i.e., P1CP production and COL1 mRNA expression), and bFGF secretion were also evaluated. RESULTS: Reduction in cell viability was significantly suppressed with LED-PI (1 J) and Cu-GHK-supplied incubation. Cell viability was increased 12.5-fold compared with the non-irradiated group (0 J). Collagen production was also increased significantly with LED-PI and Cu-GHK incorporation (197.6 ng/mL). A dose-response effect was observed for LED-PI combined with Cu-GHK. The combinative effects of LED-PI and Cu-GHK led to an increase not only in bFGF secretion (approximately 230%) but also in P1CP production (approximately 30%) and COL1 mRNA expression (approximately 70%) compared with LED-PI alone. CONCLUSION: LED-PI maintained human fibroblast (HS68) viability and increased collagen synthesis when applied by itself. In the combinative stimulation for in vitro collagen production (when LED-PI was followed by Cu-GHK-supplied incubation), stimulated cells showed increased bFGF secretion, P1CP production, and COL1 expression, compared to the LED-PI treatment alone.

Thank you, Dr.Pickart! This is a good news. The only thing that is still unknown to me is what is the difference in "NM". The Red LED used in the study is in the range 625-635 nm. The RED LED sold for home use is usually in range 800-900 nm. I wonder, would it make a difference? Would the effect be lost with increased "nm"?

800 to 900 nanometers would be infrared heating. You would not see it but it would warm your skin.

Red color is 630-700 nanometers.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

This is very interesting!!!

I saw an LED light device for home use at Rite Aid today for about $30. It said the nm wavelength was about 600-something range (I don't remember exactly the number). Anyway, do you think this device would be as effective as the one used in the study? How could I be sure?

I really want to buy it now!!! I am a total beauty product junkie!

How does this device look like? I found just one on the inernet and the price is ten times higher. Is there a website where I can look up this device? $30 is a good price.

Thank you,
Nataxa.

The device looked like a handheld wand that you are supposed to hold over your face. I don't remember the brand name; sorry. I wish I did so I could look it up too.

I think $30 is an awesome price for the light--if it works, that is! I've seen this item on the shelves for a while, and used to think, "What a crock," until recently when I read the study on red LED light and copper peptides.

I will try to get back to the store sometime soon and post the manufacturer's name. I just want to know if it is a good quality, safe item; so I told myself I wasn't going to buy it until I felt fairly confident in its efficacy.

I have found this at e-bay. Could it be something similar?

http://cgi.ebay.com/3in1-Photon-LED-Device-Skin-Rejuven...Z29618QQcmdZViewItem

Yes, the one at Rite Aid looks like the one on the link, though it is made my a different company and only has red light.

What I really want to know is, do these cheaper devices work as well as the expensive ones? Is there any reason they shouldn't? And how can I be totally sure it is effective?

I just want more information.

Dr. Pickart, do you think these for-purchase LED lights are just as effective as the one used in the aforementioned study?

Also, what possible risks, if any are associated with using red light? Would it be safe to use during pregnancy?

I have a comment and a few more questions:

First, I now remember the name. The company is called Pretika, and their device called "LightSonic Pulsating Light Therapy." Here's the link:

http://www.pretikafacebodyspa.com/lipulithst.html

Now, the questions:

First of all, I don't "get" how red light is good for skin. Is the study indicating just simple red light is good for skin? Does it matter if it is LED or not...

...because I have a little spa light at home that can be put into the bathtub. It changes colors. One of the colors is red. Can I just set the color to red and put it over my face? My spa light is not an LED light.

Hmmmm...

Dermatol Surg. 2007 Jun;33(6):676-9.Click here to read Links
Treatment of facial acne papules and pustules in Korean patients using an intense pulsed light device equipped with a 530- to 750-nm filter.
Chang SE, Ahn SJ, Rhee DY, Choi JH, Moon KC, Suh HS, Soyun-Cho .

Department of Dermatology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. cse@amc.seoul.kr

BACKGROUND: A rising number of laser- or light-based therapies are addressing the need for effective acne treatments with minimal downtime. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate an intense pulsed light (IPL) equipped with a 530- to 750-nm filter for inflammatory acne treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty female patients (mean age, 25.7 years) with mild-to-moderate acne were enrolled. While using benzoyl peroxide (BP) gel, one side of the face was treated with the PR filter (acne filter) of the IPL. RESULTS: All patients experienced the reduction of inflammatory lesion counts in both sides of face. There was no significant difference between IPL-treated and untreated sides of the face for mean papule plus pustule counts, 3 weeks after three sessions. As to red macules, 63% were good or excellent on the laser-treated side compared to 33% on the untreated side. Improvement of irregular pigmentation and skin tone was detected on the laser-treated side than the untreated side. CONCLUSION: This new wavelength band of IPL system was safe and effective in improving acne red macules, irregular pigmentation, and skin tone but did not affect inflammatory acne lesion counts on the skin of Asian persons.

Lasers Surg Med. 2006 Mar;38(3):177-80.Click here to read Links
Treatment of inflammatory facial acne vulgaris with combination 595-nm pulsed-dye laser with dynamic-cooling-device and 1,450-nm diode laser.
Glaich AS, Friedman PM, Jih MH, Goldberg LH.

DermSurgery Associates, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 585-nm pulsed-dye laser and the 1,450-nm diode laser have been found effective for the treatment of mild-to-moderate inflammatory facial acne. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combined treatment with the 595-nm pulsed-dye laser and the 1,450-nm diode laser for inflammatory facial acne. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with inflammatory facial acne were treated with a combination of the 595-nm pulsed-dye laser and the 1,450-nm diode laser. Patients' subjective response to treatment was evaluated regarding improvement in acne, acne scarring, oiliness, and redness of the skin. RESULTS: All patients had reductions in acne lesion counts. Mean lesion counts decreased 52% (P < 0.01), 63% (P < 0.01), and 84% (P < 0.01) after one, two, and three treatments, respectively. Patients described moderate-to-marked improvement in acne, acne scarring, and post-inflammatory erythema. Adverse effects were limited to mild, transient erythema. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the 595-nm pulsed-dye laser and the 1,450-nm diode laser is safe and effective for the treatment of inflammatory facial acne, acne scarring, and post-inflammatory erythema.

Bull Exp Biol Med. 2006 Jun;141(6):738-40.Links
Effect of monochromatic light of low intensity on L929 skin fibroblast culture.
[Article in English, Russian]

Sheiko EA, Shikhlyarova AI, Zlatnik EY, Zakora GI, Ivanenko ES.

Oncological Institute, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Rostov-on-Don. don-onsa@narod.ru

Effects of exposure to low-intensity monochromatic red spectrum radiation in different modes were studied on L929 skin fibroblast culture. Radiometric and cytological study of cell culture before and after irradiation showed that monochromatic low-intensity radiation stimulated skin fibroblasts in L929 culture under certain conditions.

Lasers Surg Med. 2007 Feb;39(2):180-8.Click here to read Links
Blue and red light combination LED phototherapy for acne vulgaris in patients with skin phototype IV.
Lee SY, You CE, Park MY.

Department of Dermatology, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blue light is effective for acne treatment, inducing photodynamic destruction of Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes). This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of combined blue and red light-emitting diode (LED) phototherapy for acne vulgaris. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with mild to moderately severe facial acne were treated with quasimonochromatic LED devices, alternating blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) light. The treatment was performed twice a week for 4 weeks. Objective assays of the skin condition were carried out before and after treatment at each treatment session. Clinical assessments were conducted before treatment, after the 2nd, 4th, and 6th treatment sessions and at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the final treatment by grading and lesion counting. RESULTS: The final mean percentage improvements in non-inflammatory and inflammatory lesions were 34.28% and 77.93%, respectively. Instrumental measurements indicated that the melanin levels significantly decreased after treatment. Brightened skin tone and improved skin texture were spontaneously reported by 14 patients. CONCLUSION: Blue and red light combination LED phototherapy is an effective, safe and non-painful treatment for mild to moderately severe acne vulgaris, particularly for papulopustular acne lesions.

This new posted study is very interesting, Dr. Pickart! I am acne prone, and yet I have dry skin. It is frustrating to find treatment that doesn't overdry my skin, so laser/light therapy may be a great option for me.

Ummm...I am curious, though, are these devices in the studies easily available for the average person to buy? Are they the same thing as the products we are finding in the stores and online? Could you look at the Pretika link and see what you think of the item?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am just fascinated and thrilled with the idea of having light therapy in my own home. (And for far less $$$ than at a pro's office.)