Can ultrasound ruin tissue with long term use?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:20 am

yes, you are right riley, media bandwagons can be misleading too! Very Happy

(new breakthrough, news coming up at 11PM!!)
What I am more referring to are stories that get picked up and then become part of our common knowledge - like Retin A or chemical peels for example (although people have had mixed results with these - they have provided lots of visible benefit to many, many, many people)

As far as my own successes:

Retin A and Vitamin C serums, Botox and fillers...these have stripped at least 5-10 years away from my appearance.
Only time will tell if anything else I do will help, like dermarollers and antioxidants (have not tried peptides yet).

I am coming to accept the fact that I can keep up the good fight on wrinkles and skin texture. What I will likely need help with in the future is sagging. I will likely get surgery at some point to preserve my jaw line and maybe neck area. Some people collect antiques or great cars - I collect skincare Smile

Somec

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 am

how could I leave out sunscreen?? eek, yes that is crucial to - but harder to measure Smile

how do you measure something that never came to be? LOL

All I know is that I trust in it and no longer freckle when I go out into the sun - so it must be effective!

BF

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:30 am

I need to repeat that because I believe it is very important. I used to tan and freckle before I became a skincare believer Smile

Now, I never see any freckles or increased pigmentation..so this gives me a sense that I am fending off further damage. If I do not apply sunscreen to my arms - they freckle up within minutes of sun exposure.

I rarely put sunscreen on my legs - preferring to get my natural Vitamin D that way.

As far as Vitamin C, yes, I either make my own fresh and apply it immediately and discard the rest of the batch OR I use the tetrahexydecylascorbate form of the vitamin. I realize the jury is still out on this form of the vitamin, but it is already in use by dermatologists whose work I respect, so I use it as well.

Also, I do not use it during the daytime. I realize this is controversial, so I will leave it at that.

BF

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:49 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

What I am more referring to are stories that get picked up and then become part of our common knowledge - like Retin A or chemical peels for example (although people have had mixed results with these - they have provided lots of visible benefit to many, many, many people)

Retin-A is a slightly different case in point. Because it is a pharmaceutical drug it comes under stringent guidelines and clinical testing. A drug must do what it states.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:01 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

I need to repeat that because I believe it is very important. I used to tan and freckle before I became a skincare believer Smile

Now, I never see any freckles or increased pigmentation..so this gives me a sense that I am fending off further damage. If I do not apply sunscreen to my arms - they freckle up within minutes of sun exposure.

I rarely put sunscreen on my legs - preferring to get my natural Vitamin D that way.

BF

I only use the sunscreen on my face, and I do have the freckles/damage on my arms, which I intend to work on this fall! I am horrible with body care.

What sunscreen are you using that is working so well for you, BFgirl?

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:05 am

Keliu wrote:

Well the efficacy of Vitamin C is yet another contentious issue. The general opinion of the scientific community is that Vitamin C oxidises almost immediately when exposed to light or air, rendering it completely useless. A chemist, whose opinion I value, told me that all of the OTC Vitamin C products are a waste of time.

I have read this a lot, and I have also read that is why it is necessary to mix up the antioxidants and use not just 1 but a whole variety of them.

I wonder if a product like skinmedica's C that combines the water and oil forms of C is not a better way to go?

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:14 am

I think Sigma makes a very important point for those of us with a history of skin cancer:

Quote:

Just wanted to mention - that after using Stop (which did not do too much to improve my skin) I developed a spot on my nose that definitely was not there before. I had to have it checked by the dermatologist (and now will have to check it regularly in addition to all other ones I have).

We need to be very careful about anything we use on our skin. In my readings about ultrasound, I have read that skin cancer cells can regenerate more quickly (and I'm sorry I can't find the cite right now and don't remember the conditions under which that occurs - I'll add it later). I also read that what you use as coupling gel is important.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:50 am

Has anyone tried putting the bellaire 2mhz ultrasound in water to see the bubbles? But wouldnt it be damaged by the water?

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:24 am

Let me clarify - water is a conductor, what needs to be immersed in water is not the entire unit, but the transducer part only (in case of spatula - it is that protruding thing that touches the face, in case of smallish units - the end part that touches the face). They should sealed and thus water proof (otherwise they are not worth anything at all), most of Bellaire products look to be sealed.

HTH

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:54 am

Thanks!!!

I dont actually own any ultrasound device from Bellaire. I was planning on getting one but now Im unsure.
Why did you say something is not technically right on the Bellaire website? So Bellaire is not a good brand?

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:03 am

I never said Bellaire is not a good brand. I do not know if it is or not, since I do not own their unit, and had never evaluated them.

I did point out their website to people (bio-medical engineers), who mentioned that some info was not entirely correct. At the time I did not bother to pursue it further, so can not elaborate more on that. I have to go back and talk to them.

Not knowing what kind of quality control they have in the absence of FDA regulations and testing, and just relying on the word of the manufacturer may be risky.

Also, there are no studies to confirm the safety of prolonged use of ultrasound device - that is another risk.

These are the basic points I was trying to make.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:17 am

Kassy_A wrote:

Here's a PubMed study that's encouraging.. (I think.. Embarassed )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17372061

I read the abstract, and that is not necessary an encouraging study; it's a safety test study designed to see when ultrasound damages tissues and when it does not. The punchline was that they were using ultrasound to inflict tissue damage, but trying to understand the extent of that tissue damage for safety reasons and how much intensity is needed to inflict tissue damage. They found that 5 Joules of energy was enough to damage the dermis (but not the epidermis), so anything below that should theoretically not cause tissue damage. Also, they found that the penetration depth does not depend on the intensity of the ultrasound, so the good news is that a more intense ultrasound unit does not inflict tissue damage at deeper levels than would be expected by the frequency or MHz rating of the unit.

HTH Smile

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:45 am

faeriedust wrote:

Has anyone tried putting the bellaire 2mhz ultrasound in water to see the bubbles?

I'll try later today with the 2 MHz and the ezzi-peel and see what it looks like. The 2 MHz model does come with a low and high button, as well as a continuous or pulse mode - so I'll check it all out and report back.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:39 am

sorry to also be the spoiler but since not using 302 my skin has never looked better and i get compliments once again I also have been using NIA 24 Skin Strengthening Cream at night and have seen a huge improvement in the tone and clarity of my skin.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:52 am

You're not a spoiler Smile

if it works for you, it works for you Smile

It's good to get feedback on a product with niacin. I am planning to add that to serums I make.

For sunscreen, I alternate between Blue Lizard for faces and Avene Emulsion.

I use spray sunscreen on my arms and body. - usually something with AvoTriplex or Heliocare such as Neutrogena and Banana Boat.

BF

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:34 pm

This is so scary.

Probably very naive question here: does any of this apply to the Clarisonic or Sonciare toothbrush?

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Alright. Just performed the test with the transducer head in water. On the 2 MHz ultrasound both low and high intensity, this did not create any bubbles at all for me. Both intensities pushed a column of water straight down. The high intensity just made the water move a little quicker. Bottom line is that no bubbles were created.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:12 pm

sigma wrote:

One can do a simple test - put it in a glass of water and see the bubbles. If the bubbles are intense - the advice is to use the machine sparingly, otherwise it should be low enough not to be dangerous.

4). I believe (and feel free to correct me) that there is no long term studies of the effect of the frequent use of the Ultrasound devices for facial applications (i.e. use at your own risk).

HTH

Thankyou so much for sharing this info, sigma!

What would be considered "frequent" use, though, I wonder? I've rarely used my 2mhz due to just being too tired to bother, but I was planning to use it once or twice a week for awhile.

Barefootgirl, I remember you posting that info (and thankyou for sharing, too). I hope Dr Fernandes is mistaken about home units being ineffective Neutral

I guess time will tell, though.

(If I ever get around to using mine on a regular basis, that is Rolling Eyes

)

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:52 am

rileygirl wrote:

Alright. Just performed the test with the transducer head in water. On the 2 MHz ultrasound both low and high intensity, this did not create any bubbles at all for me. Both intensities pushed a column of water straight down. The high intensity just made the water move a little quicker. Bottom line is that no bubbles were created.

Thanks for doing that test! So I guess homeheld ultrasound devices should be okay for long term use because they seem milder?

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:53 am

red head wrote:

sorry to also be the spoiler but since not using 302 my skin has never looked better and i get compliments once again I also have been using NIA 24 Skin Strengthening Cream at night and have seen a huge improvement in the tone and clarity of my skin.

Hi what else do you use with NIA skincare? I have a problem with uneven skintone.

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:54 am

faeriedust wrote:

rileygirl wrote:

Alright. Just performed the test with the transducer head in water. On the 2 MHz ultrasound both low and high intensity, this did not create any bubbles at all for me. Both intensities pushed a column of water straight down. The high intensity just made the water move a little quicker. Bottom line is that no bubbles were created.

Thanks for doing that test! So I guess homeheld ultrasound devices should be okay for long term use because they seem milder?

That would be my own personal take on it, faeriedust. I would think that if the device had created major bubbles you would not want to use that on your face, because it would doing the same thing to your skin as it is doing to the water. It would definitely have to have some major power to create bubbles. That said, I at least feel that the Bellaire units are safe to use.

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:25 pm

Does ultrasound penetrate the top of the skin or just the bottom?
This ultrasound machine targets a specific area within the deep layers of the skin, supposedly leaving the top layer untouched. I wonder why. So ultrasound is not good for the upper layer of the skin?

http://www.ulthera.com/international/for_patients/questions_answers.html

http://www.ulthera.com/pdfs/news/DermatologyTimes2007.pdf

http://www.ulthera.com/pdfs/news/European-Aesthetic-Guide-Spring-2009.pdf

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:37 pm

Anyone else have the ultrasound/galvanic unit from Rita at Prolight? I thought I remember seeing a way to test it, but I can't find it now. And because it doesn't operate by battery, I don't want to stick it in water.

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:40 pm

Skippie wrote:

Anyone else have the ultrasound/galvanic unit from Rita at Prolight? I thought I remember seeing a way to test it, but I can't find it now. And because it doesn't operate by battery, I don't want to stick it in water.

Skippie, the 2 MHz doesn't operate on battery either, you plug that in. I used a clear glass, filled it up with water, and stuck just the transducer part in the water.

free skin care · Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm

OK, thanks, Rileygirl. I'm going to write you into my will first, though, leaving you the Warp 10 so that the green tea experiment can be carried on. Laughing

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.