Low Level Laser Versus Polarized Light in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris | ||
| Egyptian Journal of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation | ||
| Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available Online from 26 April 2025 | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejptr.2025.377336.1026 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Hesham Galal Mahran1; Sohila Mamdouh Morsy Abd El Gawad* 2; Mohamed El Sayed Mashaly3; Aya G.F. Elsayed1 | ||
| 1Department of Physical Therapy for Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Egypt | ||
| 2Department of Physical Therapy for surgery, faculty of physical therapy , Sinai University, Egypt | ||
| 3Department of Dermatology and Andorology, faculty of Medicine, port-said university, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: Acne vulgaris (AV) is a prevalent chronic inflammatory dermatological illness that has a major negative consequences on individual’s quality of life, especially for teenagers and young adults, while traditional treatments such as topical and oral medications often have side effects and limitations, including antibiotic resistance and skin irritation. Purpose: light-based therapies like Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and polarized light therapy have emerged as promising alternatives due to their safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods: In this study, fifty-two patients aged 18–25 with mild to moderate AV were randomly split into two groups. Group A received laser light from a six different light spot size for 10 minutes with a maximum dose of 0.65 J/cm².Group B received polarized light from 19 cm2 light spot size with average power density 40 mW/cm² and a dosage of 2.4 J/cm² per minute. each undergoing eight treatment sessions over four weeks, with primary outcome measures including acne lesion counts (papules, pustules, comedones, and nodules) assessed 3 times; before treatment, and after 4 and 8 treatment sessions utilizing the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) scale and digital facial photographs. Results: Both groups exhibited significant improvements in acne lesion counts. Whereas comparison of two groups, the Excimer laser group demonstrated superior efficacy, particularly in reducing inflammatory lesions (papules and pustules), with a significant reduction in papule count from 4.5 pre-treatment to 0.5 post-treatment compared to the Bioptron Prol group’s reduction from 6 to 4.5, while the Excimer laser group also experienced a substantial decrease in pustule count from 5 to 0, compared to the Bioptron Prol group’s reduction from 3 to 0.5. Conclusion: These findings suggest that while both Excimer laser and Bioptron Prol therapies are effective in treating acne vulgaris, Excimer laser therapy demonstrates superior efficacy, particularly in managing inflammatory lesions, indicating that LLLT could be a valuable addition to acne treatment protocols. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Acne vulgaris; Excimer laser; Polarized light; Low-Level Laser Therapy; Bioptron Prol | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 2 |
||
