Review

Authors: Claudio Conforti, Iris Zalaudek, Roberta Vezzoni...

The skin is a dynamic organ that continuously eliminates an infinite number of keratinized cells through physiological mechanism. Chemical peeling is a widely used cosmetic procedure in medical practice. This technique consists of the application of one or more chemical ablative agents to the skin's surface in order to induce keratolysis or keratocoagulation. Exfoliation is followed by skin and epidermal regeneration from the adjacent epithelium and skin adnexa. Moreover, through an inflammatory reaction and the activation of the inflammation mediators, an increase in fibroblastic synthesis and in the production of new collagen and glycosaminoglycan fibers is induced. After the first treatment session, the appearance and the texture of the skin are significantly improved. Peeling agents may be divided into superficial (epidermis-papillary dermis), medium-depth (papillary to upper reticular dermis) and deep subtypes based on the depth of their penetration (mid-reticular dermis). Superficial peel is mainly used for dyschromia, acne, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, melasma and actinic keratosis. Medium depth peel mainly treats solar keratosis or lentigines, pigmentary disorders and superficial scars. Skin photo-ageing, deep scars or wrinkles and precancerous skin lesions require a deep chemical peeling. The aim of this article is to review recent advances in chemical peel of melasma and acne.

Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Humans; Hyperpigmentation; Keratolytic Agents; Melanosis; Skin Aging; Skin Diseases

PubMed: 31804050
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-0488.19.06425-3

Review

Authors: Christian Gan, Michelle Rodrigues

Melasma is a chronic, acquired disorder of focal hypermelanosis that carries significant psychosocial impact and is challenging for both the patient and the treating practitioner to manage in the medium to long term. Multiple treatments have been explored, often in combination given the many aetiological factors involved in its pathogenesis. Therapeutic discoveries to treat melasma are a focal topic in the literature and include a range of modalities, with recent developments including updates on visible light photoprotection, non-hydroquinone depigmenting agents, oral tranexamic acid, chemical peels, and laser and energy-based device therapy for melasma. It is increasingly important yet challenging to remain up-to-date on the arsenal of treatments available for melasma to find an efficacious and well-tolerated option for our patients.

Topics: Melanosis; Humans; Chemexfoliation; Tranexamic Acid; Laser Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Skin Lightening Preparations; Dermatologic Agents; Low-Level Light Therapy

PubMed: 38896402
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-024-00863-2

Review

Authors: Caterina Dianzani, Claudio Conforti, Roberta Giuffrida...

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a very common skin disease caused by chronic sun damage, which in 75% of cases arises on chronically sun-exposed areas, such as face, scalp, neck, hands, and forearms. AKs must be considered an early squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) for their probable progression into invasive SCC. For this reason, all AK should be treated, and clinical follow-up is recommended. The aims of treatment are: (i) to clinically eradicate evident and subclinical lesions, (ii) to prevent their evolution into SCC, and (iii) to reduce the number of relapses. Among available treatments, it is possible to distinguish lesion-directed therapies and field-directed therapies. Lesion-directed treatments include: (i) cryotherapy; (ii) laser therapy; (iii) surgery; and (iv) curettage. Whereas, field-directed treatments are: (i) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); (ii) diclofenac 3% gel; (iii) chemical peeling; (iv) imiquimod; and (v) photodynamic therapy (PDT). Prevention plays an important role in the treatment of AKs, and it is based on the continuous use of sunscreen and protective clothing. This review shows different types of available treatments and describes the characteristics and benefits of each medication, underlining the best choice.

Topics: Aftercare; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chemexfoliation; Cryotherapy; Curettage; Dermoscopy; Diclofenac; Disease Progression; Fluorouracil; Humans; Imiquimod; Keratosis, Actinic; Laser Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Protective Clothing; Skin; Skin Neoplasms; Sunlight; Sunscreening Agents

PubMed: 32012240
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.14767

Review

Authors: M Truchuelo, P Cerdá, L F Fernández...

Chemical peeling is a common treatment in cosmetic dermatology. A peel that has been used for many years is trichloroacetic acid. Its adverse effects have for a long time been a major limitation. We present a practical review of the characteristics, mechanisms of action, indications, and complications of superficial chemical peels and of peeling with trichloroacetic acid.

Topics: Acids; Animals; Chemexfoliation; Collagen Type I; Drug Combinations; Elastin; Epidermis; Ethanol; Facial Dermatoses; Humans; Hyperpigmentation; Keratolytic Agents; Lactic Acid; Mice; Pigmentation Disorders; Precancerous Conditions; Resorcinols; Salicylates; Skin Aging; Skin Neoplasms; Trichloroacetic Acid

PubMed: 27931952
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2016.09.014

Review

Authors: Linlin Miao, Yizhao Ma, Zhifang Liu...

BACKGROUND

Facial acne scars are a prevalent concern, leading to the development of various treatment modalities.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to explore the latest advancements in the treatment of facial acne scars, focusing on both surgical and non-surgical methods.

METHODS

The non-surgical treatments reviewed include topical medications (such as retinoids and alpha hydroxy acids) and non-invasive procedures (like microdermabrasion and chemical peels). Surgical options discussed are punch excision, subcision, and fractional laser treatments.

RESULTS

Combination therapy, integrating both surgical and non-surgical approaches, is frequently utilized to achieve optimal results in scar improvement.

CONCLUSION

Recent advancements in the treatment of facial acne scars provide promising options for individuals seeking improvement. However, these treatments have associated risks and potential adverse effects, highlighting the importance of consulting a dermatologist before beginning any treatment regimen.

Topics: Humans; Cicatrix; Acne Vulgaris; Chemexfoliation; Dermabrasion; Retinoids; Treatment Outcome

PubMed: 38303407
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13573

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Rania Abdel Hay, Khalid Shalaby, Hesham Zaher...

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult

PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2

Review

Authors: Hassanain Al-Talib, Alyaa Al-Khateeb, Ayad Hameed...

Acne vulgaris is an extremely common condition affecting the pilosebaceous unit of the skin and characterized by presence of comedones, papules, pustules, nodules, cysts, which might result in permanent scars. Acne vulgaris commonly involve adolescents and young age groups. Active acne vulgaris is usually associated with several complications like hyper or hypopigmentation, scar formation and skin disfigurement. Previous studies have targeted the efficiency and safety of local and systemic agents in the treatment of active acne vulgaris. Superficial chemical peeling is a skin-wounding procedure which might cause some potentially undesirable adverse events. This study was conducted to review the efficacy and safety of superficial chemical peeling in the treatment of active acne vulgaris. It is a structured review of an earlier seven articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The clinical assessments were based on pretreatment and post-treatment comparisons and the role of superficial chemical peeling in reduction of papules, pustules and comedones in active acne vulgaris. This study showed that almost all patients tolerated well the chemical peeling procedures despite a mild discomfort, burning, irritation and erythema have been reported; also the incidence of major adverse events was very low and easily manageable. In conclusion, chemical peeling with glycolic acid is a well-tolerated and safe treatment modality in active acne vulgaris while salicylic acid peels is a more convenient for treatment of darker skin patients and it showed significant and earlier improvement than glycolic acid.

Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Chemexfoliation; Erythema; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Salicylates; Salicylic Acid; Treatment Outcome

PubMed: 28538881
DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20175273

Review

Authors: Șoimița Emiliana Măgerușan, Gabriel Hancu, Aura Rusu...

Acne vulgaris stands out as the most prevalent skin disorder among teenagers and young adults, causing physical discomfort and considerable economic and psychological burdens on individuals and society. A wide range of topical and systemic therapies are available in acne treatment. Chemical peeling is a skin resurfacing technique designed to rebuild healthy skin using exfoliating substances, a simple and affordable process with various dermatological uses. Chemical peels, classified as superficial, medium, and deep, have been utilized for acne vulgaris and multiple other skin issues. In these chemical peels, a diverse range of chemical substances is employed, each with its unique mode of action. Among these, α-hydroxy and β-hydroxy acids have gathered attention for their efficacy in reducing acne lesions and enhancing overall skin appearance. Acids, such as salicylic acid, glycolic acid, or lactic acid, are commonly used in chemical peels due to their exfoliating and sebum-regulating properties. Despite the widespread use of these acids, there exists a lack of consensus regarding the most effective acid type and concentration for treating acne-prone skin. This review aims to bridge this knowledge gap by evaluating the effectiveness and safety of various organic acids used in chemical peels specifically for acne-prone skin. The findings of this comprehensive bibliographic review indicate that organic acid-based chemical peels represent effective and safe treatment options for individuals with acne-prone skin. Their adaptability sets these treatments apart; the choice of organic acid can be tailored to meet individual patient needs and tolerability levels. This personalized approach ensures that patients receive optimal care while minimizing the risks associated with the treatment. As research in this field progresses, it is anticipated that a more nuanced understanding of the ideal acid type and concentration will emerge, further enhancing the efficacy and safety of chemical peels for acne-prone skin.

Topics: Adolescent; Young Adult; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Acne Vulgaris; Salicylic Acid; Chemexfoliation; Skin

PubMed: 37894698
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28207219

Review

Authors: Gary D Monheit

With so many new peel preparations on the market today, the dermatologist must ask himself basic questions concerning the products. The most important question is directed to the medical literature rather than the advertising or marketing campaign so common among market-driven cosmetic products. Since all peeling agents--superficial, medium depth and deep--are derived from basic chemicals known to cause exfoliation, destruction and/or inflammation of skin in a controlled manner, the clinician must ask what is new and better about the product. Peeling agents, regardless of their proprietary new name, fall into chemical families. The clinical evaluation of these generic agents is well documented in our literature as to efficacy, technical care and safety. In addition, combinations of peeling agents have been presented in the dermatologic cosmetic literature with scientific clinical trials and histology. These include: 1) The Gordon-Baker phenol peel; 2) Combination medium depth peeling; 3) Glycolic acid formulations. It is the responsibility of the dermatologic surgeon to be in control of his chemicals and his products. It is thus necessary for him to understand all the products and the peel formulation and be sure it has undergone the test of objective scientific study with clear clinical evaluations and histology. Only then will we truly know the effectiveness of the agents we are using for exfoliating and resurfacing.

Topics: Administration, Topical; Chemexfoliation; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Patient Selection; Skin Aging

PubMed: 14749844
DOI: No ID Found

Authors: Michael J Conneely, Jin Namkoong, Francis Allison...

A tensioned ex vivo full-thickness human skin explant platform was used to assess the bioeffects arising from application of several commercial chemexfoliation agents. Although such treatments are well-established, and improved understanding of the underlying mechanistic processes continues to emerge, research into the optimum treatments for specific skin types/conditions is still needed for enhanced efficacy while minimizing recovery time. The 3 commercial chemexfoliation agents employed all contained trichloroacetic acid at well-defined concentrations (6, 10, and 20%) and were applied to the explants' stratum corneum. Subsequently, measurements of dermal remodeling factors (COL1A1, ELN, HAS2, HAS3, and procollagen type I) and inflammatory marker (IL-1b) were undertaken using qPCR and immunofluorescent analyses. Statistical analysis of these data facilitated the establishment of benchmarking biological responses to these trichloroacetic acid-containing agents against untreated controls. The performance of an innovative trichloroacetic acid-free chemexfoliation agent was then measured and, upon comparison with the previous benchmarking data, indicated that dermal remodeling factors could be upregulated in fashion comparable with that of the trichloroacetic acid-containing agents but with significant suppression of inflammatory response. Our measurements thus underscore the promise of the tensioned explant over prolonged study periods and also that potentially valuable insights to guide preclinical strategies may be forthcoming from the protocol developed.

PubMed: 39403555
DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100305