 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:00 pm  |
| Keliu wrote: |
jjbeacham - I read the information in the link you posted above and thought this sentence was very interesting:
Red light (620nm) LED phototherapy induces a mild inflammation of the target cells and sets up an immune response that helps to regenerate these cells. This helps to rejuvenate skin and to help with skin healing.
So the LED would appear to cause both additional inflammation AND help the healing response. |
Oops, I missed that! I think that's exactly right - LED does appear to do both. Like you said in your earlier post, our mothers and grandmothers never even thought of attempting the procedures we do at home on a daily basis. I would love to have proof one way or another regarding LED post-rolling, but may just have to rely on anecdotal evidence (like my own face).  I'm perfectly happy being a guinea pig. ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:18 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
.... As I recall, the old adage used to be "signal, feed, and protect" for skin care. The roller signals the need for repair, any number of products feed the skin (sea kelp bioferment, coconut endosperm, etc.) and antioxidants protect - and in this lovely process, new collagen is created. Green tea is full of antioxidants and I think it would be marvelous to use after rolling. I intend to try it myself within the next few days. I really think that the only difference this will make is that perhaps the inflammatory response will not be quite as great as it would be otherwise. So it takes a little longer for the cumulative results to show up - that's okay with me. And I think the gentler approach just may lead to healthier new collagen ....
|
Copying this from the huge DermaRoller thread to aid in my discussion and questions.
| Kay2008 wrote: |
I am sure some of you have already seen this picture before, but I found it interesting. Showing what different length needles reach:
 |
If someone is using a dermaroller with needles less than 1.0 mm, how is collagen being stimulated or produced? Wouldn't a 0.2 mm or even a 0.5 mm roller just penetrate through the stratum corneum into the epidermis? It is my understanding that collagen and elastin are components of the dermis, not the epidermis. TIA |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:38 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
| If someone is using a dermaroller with needles less than 1.0 mm, how is collagen being stimulated or produced? Wouldn't a 0.2 mm or even a 0.5 mm roller just penetrate through the stratum corneum into the epidermis? It is my understanding that collagen and elastin are components of the dermis, not the epidermis. TIA |
That's a very valid point, and one which was discussed allot on the main Dermaroller thread. There is some information around that states that the shorter needles are beneficial.
However, regardless of the amount of collagen that is induced, a needle length of 0.5 definitely damages the skin and causes a wound healing response - but whether they generate the same amount of collagen as the longer needles is open for debate. I'll see if I can dig up the info I read on the shorter needles that I'm thinking of.
ETA: the 0.2 needles are most definitely for product penetration only - but I think the 0.5 needles have much more potential for generating the wound healing response. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:32 pm |
Hi, Lacy. I've seen that model of the skin in the big dermaroller thread, and as far as I know, it is accurate. What I have not seen on that thread or any other is the fact that on most people, the epidermis itself is only 0.2mm thick. The thickest skin on the human body is found on the heels, and that skin is normally 1.5mm thick. Males usually have thicker skin than females. As we age, the skin thins as well. The thinnest skin is usually on the eyelids and behind the ears. I am discussing normal skin here, not scarred or calloused skin.
Still, no matter how thick the skin itself is, the fact remains that with a 0.1mm or longer needle, the stratum corneum (horny layer - the thickness of which is 1/100th of a millimeter) of the epidermis will be completely penetrated. An invasion of this type will trigger wound response within the skin. Admittedly, longer needles that actually reach the dermis will create more collagen, but using too long a needle also has the potential of hitting a nerve, literally, since nerve receptors are located beneath the epidermis (which is why the longer needles cause pain). In order to induce collagen, I think it's important to use a 0.5mm, 1.0mm or 1.5mm on the face, depending on the individual's facial skin thickness. Other parts of the body where the skin is thicker will obviously require a bit longer needle - here again, that will differ on individuals.
I don't believe that it is necessary to actually penetrate the dermis itself with a needle in order to get some collagen induction results. If application of a glycolic peel (wounding the epidermis) causes an increase in collagen production because of wound response, it only makes sense to me that actual penetration of the stratum corneum will do the same. In addition, when you apply a product and roll it in, it has been estimated that serum absorption is increased 1000 times over that achieved with simple topical application. Even if that figure is exaggerated, I know from personal experience that when you roll the face with a 0.2mm roller and apply an active, you can actually feel the product entering the skin.
I am using the 0.2mm roller for better penetration of products and to increase epidermal thickness, and I use a 0.5mm roller for collagen induction. Please see the quote below from the Original DermaRoller website:
Histological findings of skin tissue that was microneedled with 0.5 to 1.5 mm long needles (according to facial skin thickness) revealed that they stimulated massive growth of elastin- and collagen fibres (in some cases up to 1,000%). The inventor called this form of microneedling COLLAGEN-INDUCTION-THERAPY (CIT in short).
http://www.micro-needle.com/index2.html
BTW, I love this discussion! You make me think! ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:46 pm |
I am reposting This Is Miranda's post of December 13 in this thread:
This is interesting....
This study also evaluated the penetration forces and needle length. Interestingly, after evaluation of all the biopsies, new collagen fibers were only found at the corium not deeper than 0.5mm to 0.6 mm. Even though 2.0 mm needles were used, no new collagen fibers could be found in the sub dermal layer illustrating no benefit to using longer more invasive needles.
Found it here
http://dermalintegrity.com/newsmedia/micro.html |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:37 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
| Hi, Lacy. I've seen that model of the skin in the big dermaroller thread, and as far as I know, it is accurate. What I have not seen on that thread or any other is the fact that on most people, the epidermis itself is only 0.2mm thick. The thickest skin on the human body is found on the heels, and that skin is normally 1.5mm thick. Males usually have thicker skin than females. As we age, the skin thins as well. The thinnest skin is usually on the eyelids and behind the ears. I am discussing normal skin here, not scarred or calloused skin. |
Here is the study most people are familiar with regarding the thickness of the stratum corneum. Although it discusses thickness in terms of layers, the relationships would remain the same:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0a8l0f817p0k39d1/
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Still, no matter how thick the skin itself is, the fact remains that with a 0.1mm or longer needle, the stratum corneum (horny layer - the thickness of which is 1/100th of a millimeter) of the epidermis will be completely penetrated. An invasion of this type will trigger wound response within the skin. Admittedly, longer needles that actually reach the dermis will create more collagen, but using too long a needle also has the potential of hitting a nerve, literally, since nerve receptors are located beneath the epidermis (which is why the longer needles cause pain). |
Agreed; a needle of 0.2 mm will penetrate the stratum corneum. I am not aware of the actual measurement of the stratum corneum, but I will accept your statement it is less than 0.2 mm.
| jjbeacham wrote: |
| In order to induce collagen, I think it's important to use a 0.5mm, 1.0mm or 1.5mm on the face, depending on the individual's facial skin thickness. Other parts of the body where the skin is thicker will obviously require a bit longer needle - here again, that will differ on individuals. |
I would partially agree with your statement. From the diagram I can see that a needle longer than 1.0 mm should penetrate into the dermis, thereby causing a wound-healing response. While you are entitled to your opinion, I would like some sort of evidence that a short 0.5 mm needle actually does cause the building of collagen (which only occurs in the dermis).
| jjbeacham wrote: |
| I don't believe that it is necessary to actually penetrate the dermis itself with a needle in order to get some collagen induction results. If application of a glycolic peel (wounding the epidermis) causes an increase in collagen production because of wound response, it only makes sense to me that actual penetration of the stratum corneum will do the same. |
Glycolic peels are considered superficial peels, even when performed at high concentration and low pH, and administered by an MD. To the best of my current knowledge they do not build collagen in the dermis. Medium and deep chemical peels which actually damage the dermis do result in the rebuilding of collagen. Can you provide me with a reliable source stating that glycolic peels affect the dermal layer of the skin?
| jjbeacham wrote: |
In addition, when you apply a product and roll it in, it has been estimated that serum absorption is increased 1000 times over that achieved with simple topical application. Even if that figure is exaggerated, I know from personal experience that when you roll the face with a 0.2mm roller and apply an active, you can actually feel the product entering the skin.
I am using the 0.2mm roller for better penetration of products and to increase epidermal thickness, and I use a 0.5mm roller for collagen induction. Please see the quote below from the Original DermaRoller website:
Histological findings of skin tissue that was microneedled with 0.5 to 1.5 mm long needles (according to facial skin thickness) revealed that they stimulated massive growth of elastin- and collagen fibres (in some cases up to 1,000%). The inventor called this form of microneedling COLLAGEN-INDUCTION-THERAPY (CIT in short).
http://www.micro-needle.com/index2.html
BTW, I love this discussion! You make me think! ~ JJ |
Normally I don't accept unpublished studies cited by the seller of a product as a reliable source of information. However, my question was specifically related to rolling with the 0.5 mm dermaroller, so I have no comment on the 0.2 mm dermarolling for product penetration.
Any wound/injury studies that I have seen published refer to dermal injuries and the subsequent production of collagen and elastin. If you could refer me to any studies discussing wounding of the epidermis and the subsequent induction of collagen in the dermis, I would be most happy to read them. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:37 am |
Hi Lacy, thanks for responding to my post. I know that you are an intelligent woman, and I am very appreciative of your input. That said, we are all going to believe what we choose to believe. I love my small-needled rollers, and I believe they help my skin. Of course not, you don't have to accept any study by anyone, and I understand your reluctance to accept studies shown on a website that does indeed sell dermarollers. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me. If you can show me studies to refute what I think is true, please send them my way; I will gladly read them. In the meantime, I will be rolling merrily away, believing my firmer, thicker, springier skin is a reality, and not just wishful thinking. The bottom line appears to be that this debate is ongoing within the medical community. Even practitioners within the plastic surgery industry are divided about the best needle length, how the needles should be spaced on the wheel, how often to do the treatments, etc., so of course members of a forum are going to have differing opinions.
BTW, I am completely frazzled from gift-wrapping! Whew! I hope your holidays are marvelous and filled with joy. ~ JJ
ETA: Did you happen to read Miranda's post above? |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:52 am |
Lacy, this is from the Dermaroller website. I know that you want to see scientific studies, but all information on the Dermaroller website is controlled by Dr.Horst Liebl, the inventor, so I'm presuming it would be accurate.
http://www.dermaroller.de/us/science/percutanous-delivery.html
The Dermaroller™ CIT-8 (CIT: Collagen Induction Therapy, Medical model) has the same characteristics with the Cosmetic types but in this case the needle length is 0.5mm (500 µm). Rolling the cylinder on the skin surface creates deeper micro-channels on the stratum corneum, through which any kind of substance we apply on the skin will gain access to even deeper and viable skin layers. On the same time, controlled, minuscule trauma is caused to the dermis, which reacts physiologically by producing collagen. The exact mechanisms of action are described later.
If you want you could email Dr Liebl and discuss this with him. Bethany used to contact him with questions and he was always very helpful. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:23 am |
Alittle worried about dipping my toe in such a technical discussion but here goes...
I have two paths of conflicting thought:
When I had a series of MD administered mild glycolic peels, all it did was thin my skin; I had no visible collagen production. The MD's aim was to fade hyperpigmentation, not activate collagen (anyway it failed on both counts).
But then of course we know the skin will heal a mild surface injury; even a 0.2mm puncture wound from a DR that leaves the skin surface intact must be igniting some sort of response.
But will the skin stop reacting to the 0.2mm DR injury if used too often?
(I don't feel my vaculifter is having the same effect as it did when I first started using it, the initial shock value has gone, my skin has gotten used to it.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:57 am |
| This is Miranda wrote: |
But will the skin stop reacting to the 0.2mm DR injury if used too often?
(I don't feel my vaculifter is having the same effect as it did when I first started using it, the initial shock value has gone, my skin has gotten used to it.) |
I have never used a 0.2mm roller - but from what I have read and heard, it's not really injuring the skin to any great degree. Apparently it doesn't hurt at all. It is merely creating micro channels to aid product penetration. Therefore, I can't see how the skin would become used to it, because the main purpose of its use is the delivery of the topicals - which, of course, could always be switched around.
The main benefit of the Vaculifter is massage and the stimulation of the skin by bringing blood to the surface. If your skin is getting used to the massage, it is probably because it is becoming more resilient.
ETA: I should also have mentioned that the skin's response to needling does lessen somewhat after a while. The skin does not get as red and irritated. I think this is probably because the skin is becoming thicker. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:06 am |
I thought I would throw a little bit of an email I got from Dr. Fernandes. This is regarding the small needle size for product penetration.
"There is the conventional Cosmetic Roll-CIT that penetrates only the very superficial layer of the skin that is the barrier", and "the length of the needles does not determine the quantity that penetrates. It’s mainly due to the number of holes. The more holes the better the penetration."
I don't think anyone's skin would get used to it and stop reacting. According to Dr. Fernandes, it is all about the amount of holes to help the product penetrate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:55 am |
jjbeacham is correct is pointing out the differences in skin thickness on various parts of the
body and the differences amongst individuals. I have abnormally thin skin for my age, and
I have been told this by numerous doctors. I would surely not use a 1.5mm roller on my
face because my skin is thinner than average. I think it's possible for a .5mm or 1mm to
be effective, at least in my case.
Lacy, I can certainly understand your concern about studies that originate from someone
selling the product. I am always less trustful of these studies. At this point, it doesn't seem like there are enough studies done by outside parties. As jjbeacham said, much of this does seem to be an ongoing debate and learning experience. I have searched the internet for doctors in my state that do medical dermarolling, and it just isn't very widespread here. We surely need
many more studies done on this subject.
Keliu is correct regarding the .2mm roller in that the goal isn't to create collagen by
causing injury to the skin. It merely aims to increse product penetration, and this,
we hope, will be very effective. I know one person has mentioned good results with
this type of rolling, and this thread is still very new. I am excited to see all the results
in the coming months. I have bought the .2mm but haven't started using it yet. I also
liked Keliu's point about a .5mm creating a "wound healing response". I would love to know
if anyone has had results from a .5mm. I am using the .5mm under my eyes, but it
has only been 2 months, so I think it's too soon to tell. It was my impression from the
main dermarolling thread, that it would take at least 3 to 4 months to see results.
By the way, I'm really loving this thread. I can't wait to hear results as time goes on.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:35 am |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Hi Lacy, thanks for responding to my post. I know that you are an intelligent woman, and I am very appreciative of your input. That said, we are all going to believe what we choose to believe. I love my small-needled rollers, and I believe they help my skin. Of course not, you don't have to accept any study by anyone, and I understand your reluctance to accept studies shown on a website that does indeed sell dermarollers. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me. If you can show me studies to refute what I think is true, please send them my way; I will gladly read them. In the meantime, I will be rolling merrily away, believing my firmer, thicker, springier skin is a reality, and not just wishful thinking. The bottom line appears to be that this debate is ongoing within the medical community. Even practitioners within the plastic surgery industry are divided about the best needle length, how the needles should be spaced on the wheel, how often to do the treatments, etc., so of course members of a forum are going to have differing opinions.
BTW, I am completely frazzled from gift-wrapping! Whew! I hope your holidays are marvelous and filled with joy. ~ JJ
ETA: Did you happen to read Miranda's post above? |
Thank you JJ for your words. I did go back to Miranda's previous post where she linked to a the study about micro-needling and injecting platelet-rich plasma to induce collagen synthesis. I found the article somewhat confusing and lacking in exact details, so I went off in search of another source of this same information.
Ignoring the injecting information (I don't think anyone is doing that here?) I just looked at the microneedling, which is the topic at hand. Looking at the Schwartz study, It appears that the needles used were actually 1.5 mm; in this case the dermis would physically be penetrated so of course the wound healing response would come into play and new collagen would be built.
The abstract for the Greco article linked to by Miranda states:
This author theorized, that micro needling platelet rich plasma (PRP) into the dermis would intensify the natural wound cascade because of the high concentration of the patients own growth factors. Do you know the length of the needles used in this study? I don't see it stated, not do I see the name of the actual roller used (which would of course indicate the the needle length).
I still can not find any information on rolling with a 0.5 mm roller resulting in the formation of collagen in the dermis, unless of course the needles actually pierce the dermis because the epidermis is extremely thin in the first place (such as the upper eyelid area).
The Dermaroller™ CIT-8 (CIT: Collagen Induction Therapy, Medical model) is described as "having the same characteristics with the Cosmetic types but in this case the needle length is 0.5mm (500 µm). Rolling the cylinder on the skin surface creates deeper micro-channels on the stratum corneum, through which any kind of substance we apply on the skin will gain access to even deeper and viable skin layers. On the same time, controlled, minuscule trauma is caused to the dermis, which reacts physiologically by producing collagen."
Perhaps my confusion comes from the use of the term "microneedling". I was assuming it related to needles length but perhaps it refers to bore and density of the needles themselves. I don't use a dermaroller myself but I am interested in the theory of the process. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:39 am |
Okay, more info:
This is from the Dermaroller website regarding the 0.5 roller and collagen. Lacy, I know this is yet again citing a website with a vested interest, but I simply don't have time right now to buckle down and find medical studies. I will do so after Jan. 1 when I can actually take a breath!  I too would like definitive answers.
http://www.dermaroller.de/us/science/percutanous-delivery.html
PERCUTANEOUS COLLAGEN INDUCTION THERAPY
Percutaneous Collagen Induction is the process during which we initiate the physiological collagen production of the dermis without causing any permanent damage to the epidermal layer of the skin. The best way to achieve this is by using the Dermaroller™ CIT-8, which contains 192 needles of 0.5mm length.
This process has been formerly described as skin needling.
The process is actually quite simple but amazing at the same time:
By rolling the Dermaroller™ CIT-8 multiple times, back-and-forth in a star-like fashion over the whole area to be treated, thousands of miniscule wounds are caused on the dermis. At the same time, epidermo-dermal channels are opened. The physiological reaction of the dermis to this miniscule yet substantial in added value injury, is Collagen production. At the same time, we will supply the skin with specific serums with nutritional factors and vitamins, which are absorbed directly down to the dermis on extremely high rates due to the huge number of micro-channels caused by the DermarollerTM. The combination of controlled trauma to the dermis and the supply of external agents, causes an optimal natural collagen production and deposition of collagen on the epidermodermal junction.
A ton of info was posted in this thread by Bethany, and I intend to dive in head-first once the holidays are over.
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=29860 ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:46 am |
| This is Miranda wrote: |
Alittle worried about dipping my toe in such a technical discussion but here goes...
I have two paths of conflicting thought:
When I had a series of MD administered mild glycolic peels, all it did was thin my skin; I had no visible collagen production. The MD's aim was to fade hyperpigmentation, not activate collagen (anyway it failed on both counts).
But then of course we know the skin will heal a mild surface injury; even a 0.2mm puncture wound from a DR that leaves the skin surface intact must be igniting some sort of response.
But will the skin stop reacting to the 0.2mm DR injury if used too often?
(I don't feel my vaculifter is having the same effect as it did when I first started using it, the initial shock value has gone, my skin has gotten used to it.) |
Miranda, I have heard/read so often that glycolic peels create collagen production, and now I am questioning that fact. I'll look into that and see if I can locate my sources after the holidays. I know that your derm thinned your skin out way too much using glycolics. And I think that could happen to anyone doing glycolic peels at home, as I have done. So I'm very interested in several aspects of the glycolic peel question.
As far as the skin adjusting to the use of a roller, yes, it does, because I can tell that for me there is less redness/swelling than when I first began. However, using the 0.2mm roller is supposed to actually provide cumulative results, so that if you are rolling with any regularity, you are not only increasing product absorption, but you are also thickening the epidermis, which I know is one of your goals. HTH!! |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:46 am |
Just to clarify, what you are trying to do here is discover whether a 0.5mm derma roller can instigate collagen build or if it only channels products for deeper penetration.
Just to ask again, if a mild surface wound can trigger a healing response, why wouldn't a 0.5mm do the same? Is that not the same as collagen building? (Apologies if this sounds dumb, but I'm truly bamboozled by all this!) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:53 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
| This is Miranda wrote: |
But will the skin stop reacting to the 0.2mm DR injury if used too often?
(I don't feel my vaculifter is having the same effect as it did when I first started using it, the initial shock value has gone, my skin has gotten used to it.) |
I have never used a 0.2mm roller - but from what I have read and heard, it's not really injuring the skin to any great degree. Apparently it doesn't hurt at all. It is merely creating micro channels to aid product penetration. Therefore, I can't see how the skin would become used to it, because the main purpose of its use is the delivery of the topicals - which, of course, could always be switched around.
The main benefit of the Vaculifter is massage and the stimulation of the skin by bringing blood to the surface. If your skin is getting used to the massage, it is probably because it is becoming more resilient.
ETA: I should also have mentioned that the skin's response to needling does lessen somewhat after a while. The skin does not get as red and irritated. I think this is probably because the skin is becoming thicker. |
Keliu, you're absolutely right - the 0.2mm does not hurt at all. Great point about switching your products around. I've been doing that a bit. I do know that my reaction to either of my rollers is not as intense as when I did the first roll, which I assume is because the skin is thickening. I also still drybrush, but that's been ongoing for months, so I believe this new firmness is due to the 0.2mm roller. I've been rolling such a short time I don't think the 0.5mm results can be seen yet on me. I think it takes at least a month. However, after a 0.5mm roll, I have 24 hours of swelling and redness and when that is gone, my skin looks amazing. So I do have that visible result, just not sure of long-term results.
I am once again amazed at how informed the members of EDS are! We are so fortunate to have such inquiring minds among us.
I wanted to take a moment to wish all of you the happiest of holidays. ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:57 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
I thought I would throw a little bit of an email I got from Dr. Fernandes. This is regarding the small needle size for product penetration.
"There is the conventional Cosmetic Roll-CIT that penetrates only the very superficial layer of the skin that is the barrier", and "the length of the needles does not determine the quantity that penetrates. It’s mainly due to the number of holes. The more holes the better the penetration."
I don't think anyone's skin would get used to it and stop reacting. According to Dr. Fernandes, it is all about the amount of holes to help the product penetrate. |
Riley, this is excellent! So from a penetration standpoint, we are good to go even with a 0.2mm roller simply because it creates so many holes. Obviously then, when I do a semi-roll, swiping my face up and down, I am not going to get the product penetration I would get from using the star pattern and rolling 5 or more times in each direction. I know that is just common sense, but I wanted to note it in this thread. Thank you so much for anything from Dr. Fernandes. He is remarkable about replying to emails, isn't he? ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:04 pm |
| breezy42 wrote: |
jjbeacham is correct is pointing out the differences in skin thickness on various parts of the
body and the differences amongst individuals. I have abnormally thin skin for my age, and
I have been told this by numerous doctors. I would surely not use a 1.5mm roller on my
face because my skin is thinner than average. I think it's possible for a .5mm or 1mm to
be effective, at least in my case.
Lacy, I can certainly understand your concern about studies that originate from someone
selling the product. I am always less trustful of these studies. At this point, it doesn't seem like there are enough studies done by outside parties. As jjbeacham said, much of this does seem to be an ongoing debate and learning experience. I have searched the internet for doctors in my state that do medical dermarolling, and it just isn't very widespread here. We surely need
many more studies done on this subject.
Keliu is correct regarding the .2mm roller in that the goal isn't to create collagen by
causing injury to the skin. It merely aims to increse product penetration, and this,
we hope, will be very effective. I know one person has mentioned good results with
this type of rolling, and this thread is still very new. I am excited to see all the results
in the coming months. I have bought the .2mm but haven't started using it yet. I also
liked Keliu's point about a .5mm creating a "wound healing response". I would love to know
if anyone has had results from a .5mm. I am using the .5mm under my eyes, but it
has only been 2 months, so I think it's too soon to tell. It was my impression from the
main dermarolling thread, that it would take at least 3 to 4 months to see results.
By the way, I'm really loving this thread. I can't wait to hear results as time goes on. |
Breezy - great post! So it should take 3-4 months to see results from the 0.5mm roller? Good to know. I read that collagen will continue to be created for 10 months after an initial treatment. So conceivably, doing a treatment every month or six weeks or two months for maintenance will actually continue the production of new collagen. Exciting, isn't it? BTW, I am proceeding with the protocol of using the 0.2mm every day but one per week and using the 0.5mm once a week. So far, I have definitely noticed that my skin is firmer and tighter. With all the rolling, I have not been wearing foundation very often, but when I do, it looks so much better than it did prior to rolling, which seems to me to be a good way of actually "seeing" what you are accomplishing. ~ JJ
ETA: I'm like you - I don't think I could take the 1.5mm rollers. Maybe not even the 1.0mm. My skin strongly reacts to the 0.5mm. |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:14 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Hi Lacy, thanks for responding to my post. I know that you are an intelligent woman, and I am very appreciative of your input. That said, we are all going to believe what we choose to believe. I love my small-needled rollers, and I believe they help my skin. Of course not, you don't have to accept any study by anyone, and I understand your reluctance to accept studies shown on a website that does indeed sell dermarollers. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me. If you can show me studies to refute what I think is true, please send them my way; I will gladly read them. In the meantime, I will be rolling merrily away, believing my firmer, thicker, springier skin is a reality, and not just wishful thinking. The bottom line appears to be that this debate is ongoing within the medical community. Even practitioners within the plastic surgery industry are divided about the best needle length, how the needles should be spaced on the wheel, how often to do the treatments, etc., so of course members of a forum are going to have differing opinions.
BTW, I am completely frazzled from gift-wrapping! Whew! I hope your holidays are marvelous and filled with joy. ~ JJ
ETA: Did you happen to read Miranda's post above? |
Thank you JJ for your words. I did go back to Miranda's previous post where she linked to a the study about micro-needling and injecting platelet-rich plasma to induce collagen synthesis. I found the article somewhat confusing and lacking in exact details, so I went off in search of another source of this same information.
Ignoring the injecting information (I don't think anyone is doing that here?) I just looked at the microneedling, which is the topic at hand. Looking at the Schwartz study, It appears that the needles used were actually 1.5 mm; in this case the dermis would physically be penetrated so of course the wound healing response would come into play and new collagen would be built.
The abstract for the Greco article linked to by Miranda states:
This author theorized, that micro needling platelet rich plasma (PRP) into the dermis would intensify the natural wound cascade because of the high concentration of the patients own growth factors. Do you know the length of the needles used in this study? I don't see it stated, not do I see the name of the actual roller used (which would of course indicate the the needle length).
I still can not find any information on rolling with a 0.5 mm roller resulting in the formation of collagen in the dermis, unless of course the needles actually pierce the dermis because the epidermis is extremely thin in the first place (such as the upper eyelid area).
The Dermaroller™ CIT-8 (CIT: Collagen Induction Therapy, Medical model) is described as "having the same characteristics with the Cosmetic types but in this case the needle length is 0.5mm (500 µm). Rolling the cylinder on the skin surface creates deeper micro-channels on the stratum corneum, through which any kind of substance we apply on the skin will gain access to even deeper and viable skin layers. On the same time, controlled, minuscule trauma is caused to the dermis, which reacts physiologically by producing collagen."
Perhaps my confusion comes from the use of the term "microneedling". I was assuming it related to needles length but perhaps it refers to bore and density of the needles themselves. I don't use a dermaroller myself but I am interested in the theory of the process. |
Lacy, my understanding is that 0.5mm and longer needles are capable of collagen induction. I think perhaps we need to email this question to Dr. Fernandes. From everything I have read, even a 0.5mm needle will create enough trauma to cause wound response, which in turn signals the production of new collagen. We do need something definitive on this subject, that's for sure. I know that whereas a 0.2mm roller does not hurt in the least, a 0.5mm roller does hurt my skin. So it is reaching the area where the nerve receptors are located. I have never had blood spots or any bleeding, but plenty of pain. Does this mean I have gone deep enough to cause new collagen to be created? That is the big question here, isn't it? Calling Dr. Fernandes........ ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:28 pm |
| This is Miranda wrote: |
Just to clarify, what you are trying to do here is discover whether a 0.5mm derma roller can instigate collagen build or if it only channels products for deeper penetration.
Just to ask again, if a mild surface wound can trigger a healing response, why wouldn't a 0.5mm do the same? Is that not the same as collagen building? (Apologies if this sounds dumb, but I'm truly bamboozled by all this!) |
You nailed it, Miranda. That is exactly what we are trying to determine. Does a 0.5mm roller induce collagen production? Or does it simply enable deeper penetration of actives?
My thinking is just like yours. If the skin is penetrated below the stratum corneum, wound response is triggered in the skin. I thought any time the wound response cascade was triggered, the skin began the entire collagen production process, not just for deeper wounds.
What we do know is this - this is an excerpt of an email from Dr. Fernandes:
"If your friend is using longer needles then the ascorbic acid will still penetrate better but the length of the needles does not determine the quantity that penetrates. It’s mainly due to the number of holes. The more holes the better the penetration. Can be a good thing but I don’t do ascorbic acid in high dose after deeper needling."
Also, he said this regarding Retin A - not much help, but here you go:
"I have no experience using Retin-A for long term so I can’t comment.
Wish your friend the best but take my advice, use the more sun – protective version of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate. Retin-A sensitises the skin to the sun."
So we know that greater penetration of products is achieved by rolling, regardless of the length of the needles. We also know that Dr. Fernandes does not recommend the use of LAA or Retin-A when doing deep rolling, but more gentle versions of Vitamins A and C.
Now, on to the 0.5mm/collagen induction question. ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:37 pm |
Per Dr. Fernandes re thickness of the epidermis itself:
The epidermis is a complex, highly specialized organ that, although only 0.2-mm thick, is our first layer of protection from the environment.
http://www.skinhealthcanada.com/pdf/articles/9.pdf |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:43 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Lacy, my understanding is that 0.5mm and longer needles are capable of collagen induction. I think perhaps we need to email this question to Dr. Fernandes. From everything I have read, even a 0.5mm needle will create enough trauma to cause wound response, which in turn signals the production of new collagen. We do need something definitive on this subject, that's for sure. I know that whereas a 0.2mm roller does not hurt in the least, a 0.5mm roller does hurt my skin. So it is reaching the area where the nerve receptors are located. I have never had blood spots or any bleeding, but plenty of pain. Does this mean I have gone deep enough to cause new collagen to be created? That is the big question here, isn't it? Calling Dr. Fernandes........ ~ JJ |
I was able to find this article on Cosmetic vs Medical Needling. This is what states regarding needle length:
"Does depth of injury matter? Dr Des Feranades pioneered much of the work on needling and in 1996 he used a 3 mm roller. Treatments were painful and required IV sedation and analgesia. Further studies by Dr Fernandes and Dr Aust in Germany concluded that similar results could be obtained using a 1 mm roller. In 2008, Dr Greco authored an abstract and stated that biopsies revealed new collagen to a depth of 0.6 mm. Even though 2.0 mm needles were used, no new collagen fibers could be found in the sub dermal layer, illustrating no benefit to using longer more invasive needles. These findings could be extrapolated to fractional treatments to minimize injury."
As we both agreed, a 1.0 mm roller will reach the dermis and induce collagen formation. If the 0.5 mm roller does not cause bleeding, then it is my simple understanding that there will be no wound healing cascade, simply because the drawing of blood is an absolutely necessary step in collagen formation. Blood capillaries are located only the dermis, not the epidermis. Bleeding is an indication that the dermal layer of the skin has been breached.
Assuming this article is correct, Dr Fernandes and Dr Aust have found that needles must be a minimum of 1.0 mm to induce new collagen. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:46 pm |
Recommended needles lengths from the Dr. Roller website:
0.25 mm - 8 line with 192 needles Dr Roller
* improved penetration of skin care products active ingredients
0.5 mm - 8 line with 192 needles Dr Roller
* face and skin regeneration
* removal of sun damage
* anti-aging
* reduction of wrinkles
1.0 mm - 8 line with 192 needles or 3 line with 72 needles Dr Roller
* cellulite reduction
* stretch marks reduction
* wrinkles reduction
* skin regeneration
* skin pigmentation reduction
1.5 mm - 8 line with 192 needles or 3 line with 72 needles Dr Roller
* scar removal (burn, surgery, acne, etc)
* open pores reduction
http://www.dr-roller.eu/ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:51 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
| I know that whereas a 0.2mm roller does not hurt in the least, a 0.5mm roller does hurt my skin. So it is reaching the area where the nerve receptors are located. I have never had blood spots or any bleeding, but plenty of pain. Does this mean I have gone deep enough to cause new collagen to be created? That is the big question here, isn't it? Calling Dr. Fernandes........ ~ JJ |
I've sent an email to Dr. Fernandes regarding the 0.5 mm roller and collagen production. Will report what he has to say when he replies. |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:55 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
