English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The use of technology-based light therapies such as intense pulsed light and heat energy (IPL) provides an alternative therapy for patients with acne. However, clinical evidence is required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the IPL. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IPL compared to benzoyl peroxide (BP) as standard therapies in patients with acne vulgaris. The study was conducted with randomized controlled trial parallel design involving patients with mild and moderate acne vulgaris. Acne severity was determined by the method of Combined Acne Severity Classification (CASC). Statistical analysis using repeated measurement analysis of variance was conducted to assess the reduction in lesions and number of P. acnes in each group followed by independent t-test to compare of both groups. A p value <0.05 was considered significant. Sixty-two patients with mild and moderate acne vulgaris were enrolled in this study and treated with IPL (32 patients) and with BP gel 2.5% (30 patients). Two patients from the IPL were dropped out. All subjects showed improvement in acne lesions. Reduction of the number of non-inflammatory lesions at IPL therapy group was not significantly different than the BP gel 2.5% at week 2 (p=0.705) and 4 (p=0.186). Reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions in the IPL treatment group was not significantly different than BP gel 2.5% at week 2 (p=0.604) but significantly higher at week 4 (p=0.003). The reduction of P. acnes colonization in the IPL group was significantly higher than BP gel 2.5% group at week 2 (p=0.000) and 4 (p=0.000). In conclusion, the efficacy of IPL in the reduction of the number of inflammatory lesions and the P. acnes colonization is better than BP on patients with acne vulgaris.

The efficacy of intense pulsed light and heat energy therapy compared to benzoyl peroxide gel 2.5% in the treatment of mild and moderate acne vulgaris