Our services benefit both women and men!

Microneedling (FDA approved Skin Pen)

Improves: Wrinkles – Stretch marks – Scars – Acne scarring – Skin tone – Fine lines – Loose skin – Large pores – Discoloration – Thinning hair

We use THE ONLY FDA APPROVED MICRONEEDLE – The SkinPen

• Prevents cross contamination from one client to another
• Prevents back – flow contamination of the microneedle device
• Effectively treat acne scars
• Needle cartridge verified for quality, sterility and precision
• Skinfuse^® Lift HG hydrogel used to protect against abrasion and friction during the treatment, as well as the custom-designed BioSheath to prevent cross contamination.

http://bellusmedical.com/products/skinpen/

Treatment Description:  Face is washed, a numbing agent applied, and then skin is cleaned with an antiseptic. The SkinPen is a device used to stimulate collagen by activating the inflammatory cascade.  It does this with 14 microneedles which revolve over the skin, repeatedly puncturing the skin.  This treatment requires 3 – 4 treatments to spaced 4 weeks apart.

*Research:

• Split Face Comparative Study of Microneedling with PRP Versus Microneedling with Vitamin C in Treating Atrophic Post Acne Scars

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338464/

• Review of applications of microneedling in dermatology

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556180/

• Microneedling: Advances and widening horizons

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976400/

• Microneedling in All Skin Types: A Review

http://jddonline.com/articles/dermatology/S1545961617P0308X

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125953/

• Cosmetology & Oro Facial Surgery: PRP in Facial Rejuvenation (Facts vs. Hypothesis)

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/prp-in-facial-rejuvenation-facts-vs-hypothesis-95180.html

*Research:

• Safety and Effectiveness of the Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler VYC-17.5L for Nasolabial Folds: Results of a Randomized, Controlled Study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29701621

 

 

*  Many of these research studies note a low cost of treatment.  They are not using the same scale of measure a client would likely use; thus you may find the cost of treatment is not necessarily inexpensive.

*  It is important to understand that while there is research on many of these therapies which suggest the therapy is effective, the research is often not done to a large enough scale, thus may not hold the same weight in terms of quality of evidence of effectiveness.  For example, below is a chart of how medical research is rated to determine the level of evidence for a particular treatment yielding a particular result.

* To further understand, when a therapy or treatment is said to be evidence based practice in medicine and nursing, it has been deemed by a large committee of physicians who have collaboratively reviewed a vast quantity of pertinent literature prior to describing the therapy and treatment protocols that ought to be used for specific patients.  Part of this process is also known in mediconursing as peer – review of literature, meaning that it was not just one physician or nurse who developed treatment or therapy guidelines.

* This high level manner of determining the evidence as described in literature or research has not occurred  at this time in the progression of aesthetic medicine. Examples of this process described above in full effect can be seen in the American Diabetes Association recommendations for providers caring for patients with Diabetes Mellitus or Joint National Committee’s recommendations referred to as JNC 8, for treating high blood pressure.

Frequently used guidelines to grade the quality of research include the Oxford (UK) Center for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) Levels of Evidence and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines.  Each system then grades the level of recommendation of treatment based on the level of evidence.

Oxford UK CEBM Levels of Evidence:

• 1a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of randomized controlled trials
• 1b: Individual randomized controlled trials (with narrow confidence interval)
• 1c: All or none randomized controlled trials
• 2a: Systematic reviews (with homogeneity) of cohort studies
• 2b: Individual cohort study or low quality randomized controlled trials (e.g. <80% follow-up)
• 2c: “Outcomes” Research; ecological studies
• 3a: Systematic review (with homogeneity) of case-control studies
• 3b: Individual case-control study
• 4: Case series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies)
• 5: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”

https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/

USPSTF Levels of Evidence:

• Level I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
• Level II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
• Level II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
• Level II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series designs with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence.
• Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.