 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:58 pm  |
| Back on to the subject of product penetration here, but I have been thinking (again) about the things that are being penetrated into the skin. I know this is not popular talk, but are we sure this is safe to do? Are any of these ingredients really supposed to be penetrated? Could any of these ingredients be potentially harmful if they are penetrated deeper than intended? Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:16 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!) |
A mild surface wound (one which only involves the epidermis) is not building collagen. The epidermis repairs itself without involvement of the dermis. The cells of the epidermis are produced in the basal layer. The epidermis and dermis are two separate biological structures. Cells in the dermis do not migrate into the epidermis. This is why superficial peels do not build collagen .... at least that is what I have always learned. I could be wrong though! Wouldn't be the first time, trust me LOL |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:27 pm |
Posting this again, as I know I posted it somewhere in here, but this is the information on the home use Roll-Cit from Environ.
There are 108 needles 18 rowx 6 needles per row
The needles protrude 0,2mm
The needles are solid steel and are 0.3mm in length with a tapered point so that the section that goes into the skin is about 0.15 in diameter.
Now, in an email I received from Dr. Fernandes, he is not impressed with the dr. roller dermarollers and says that this does not meet his requirements. I believe the Dr. Roller has many more needles than the Roll-CIT. Do we know why it was determined on this forum that the Dr. Roller was "the best" roller and what about the difference in the number of needles? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:44 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Back on to the subject of product penetration here, but I have been thinking (again) about the things that are being penetrated into the skin. I know this is not popular talk, but are we sure this is safe to do? Are any of these ingredients really supposed to be penetrated? Could any of these ingredients be potentially harmful if they are penetrated deeper than intended? Thoughts? |
Getting back to the topic of the thread, I think you raise an excellent question Riley. Product penetration, which I believe is defined as getting the active ingredients below the stratum corneum (not as getting ingredients into the dermis as many people assume) is assumed to be not only safe but also beneficial. I too think that is a leap of faith.
Regular topical application of any product probably allows a small amount of the active ingredients to slip below the horny layer (assuming the skin is properly prepped and the product is properly made). I am not sure if opening up new channels into the skin via dermarolling is beneficial either; wouldn't the actives be heavily loaded into the skin in that case?
I just know that our skin has natural channels that allow products to penetrate; they are called pores. Most researchers agree it is through the pore openings that product ingredients are taken into the epidermis; very little if any is delivered by getting through the layers of the stratum corneum. I am referring to cosmetic products of course; drugs such as tretinoin are different. (I am aware that Retin-A is never advised after dermarolling; neither are acids.) |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:54 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Back on to the subject of product penetration here, but I have been thinking (again) about the things that are being penetrated into the skin. I know this is not popular talk, but are we sure this is safe to do? Are any of these ingredients really supposed to be penetrated? Could any of these ingredients be potentially harmful if they are penetrated deeper than intended? Thoughts? |
Riley, I do believe there are certain actives that are simply too harsh to be rolled into the skin, but they are supposedly fine to use after a period of time (an hour or two). I would never roll straight LAA or retin-a into my skin, but I normally use a gentler version of Vitamin C (ester-c) and Vitamin A (retinyl palmitate in oil) when rolling.
I remember something in the huge dermaroller thread about excess Vitamin A in the bloodstream damaging the liver, and that actually rolling in Retin-A could contribute to this.
Dr. Pickart recommends applying copper peptides no sooner than one hour after rolling, because the channels are closing sufficiently by then. His reason for this is that the CP's would cause that wretched deep itch if applied too soon.
I don't think it's necessarily the depth of the penetration, but rather the amount of certain actives being absorbed by the body.
My rules of thumb are these:
1) take oral supplements. Your body must be able to have the building materials it needs to create collagen. Therefore, Vitamin C supplementation is a must. I also take Multiple Amino Acids, MSM, BioSil, Omegas (and other oils) and Hydraplenish (hyaluronic acid). Of course, oral supplementation should not be overdone, but you do need to make sure your body has adequate supplies with which to create collagen.
2) If an active burns or stings with normal use, I would never use it during rolling. And I don't think a patch test to check your reaction to various creams, lotions or serums is out of line, either. If you're not sure, roll a small area, and apply the active you want to use. Much better to have one area burn and tingle than your entire face.
On the subject of whether it might actually be unhealthy to roll certain products in, or to increase our absorption of them, I would think Vitamin C is absolutely fine because the body does excrete excess C. However, you can overdose on Vitamin C and should limit your daily intake to 1000 mg. You can even overdose on water, so I choose to do most everything in moderation.
If you are concerned about rolling in products, you could dry-roll or roll with water and wait to apply the products.
If you roll with Virgin Red Palm Oil, I think you would be quite safe, yet still get the vitamins needed in collagen production. The oils seems safer to me than actual cosmetics from cosmetic companies. ~ 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 2:02 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Posting this again, as I know I posted it somewhere in here, but this is the information on the home use Roll-Cit from Environ.
There are 108 needles 18 rowx 6 needles per row
The needles protrude 0,2mm
The needles are solid steel and are 0.3mm in length with a tapered point so that the section that goes into the skin is about 0.15 in diameter.
Now, in an email I received from Dr. Fernandes, he is not impressed with the dr. roller dermarollers and says that this does not meet his requirements. I believe the Dr. Roller has many more needles than the Roll-CIT. Do we know why it was determined on this forum that the Dr. Roller was "the best" roller and what about the difference in the number of needles? |
Riley, I have never known how Dr. Roller came to be the roller of choice. From my reading of the large thread, it seemed that one person bought that roller, liked it, and everyone went along with that. It was such uncharted territory at the time, I don't blame them for using a roller someone else got results with.
I don't own a Dr. Roller. I do like the needle pattern on the Dr. Roller, because I believe a staggered pattern is preferable to straight-line rows of needles. My original Dermaroller.de is the same pattern, as is my 0.5mm Scientia roller. I am, of course, lemming for Dr. Fernandes' Roll-CIT. ~ 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 2:22 pm |
I roll for both product penetration and collagen building.
I use the short needled (forget the length) rollers from Leaf & Rusher for penetration and longer needles - 1.5 mm from Dr. Roller for collagen building.
I believe the Dr. Rollers were believed superior due to cross linking or something like that - I think it's buried somewhere in the long thread.
If Dr. Fernandes says that the Dr. Roller brand rollers do not creat enough holes - can't we fix that by just passing more times over the skin with the roller?
Oh by the way, I am still loving the bromelain powder mixed with cleansing oil to remove flakes - I leave the paste on my skin about 10 minutes, then rinse off - my skin feels like silk afterward. I just ordered some papain powder from GOW to see if that works just as well - these are basically enzyme peels that "eat" dead skin and leave your intact skin alone.
I am not terribly concerned about rolling too much "stuff" into my skin..as long as I roll the right stuff. I have probably read too many articles detailing how much product is wasted since it cannot penetrate the skin by topical application only.
BF |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:41 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
| 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!) |
A mild surface wound (one which only involves the epidermis) is not building collagen. The epidermis repairs itself without involvement of the dermis. The cells of the epidermis are produced in the basal layer. The epidermis and dermis are two separate biological structures. Cells in the dermis do not migrate into the epidermis. This is why superficial peels do not build collagen .... at least that is what I have always learned. I could be wrong though! Wouldn't be the first time, trust me LOL |
Lacy, regarding the question of whether glycolic acid peels build collagen, according to The Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, they do. See: http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2001/01000/Quantitative_and_Qualitative_Effects_of_Chemical.36.aspx
"One hundred Skh:HR-1 hairless mice were photo-aged by use of chronic ultraviolet B irradiation for 14 weeks. After irradiation the animals were randomly distributed into five groups of 20 mice each: group 1, control; group 2, 50% glycolic acid peel; group 3, 30% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 4, 50% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 5, phenol peel (Baker-Gordon formula). The respective peeling agent was applied to the dorsal skin of each animal while it was fully anesthetized. Punch biopsies were taken at several times after peel for histological and biochemical analysis. Glycosaminoglycan content was assessed at 14, 28, and 60 days using a colorimetric assay.
Collagen content per unit volume increased initially 3 days after the procedure in all chemical peel groups, declining on day 7, and peaking again on day 28.
Everything I have ever read about glycolic acid peels states that they contribute to collagen production. I am glad to know I did not endure those 50% GA peels in vain. ~ 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 2:45 pm |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
I roll for both product penetration and collagen building.
I use the short needled (forget the length) rollers from Leaf & Rusher for penetration and longer needles - 1.5 mm from Dr. Roller for collagen building.
I believe the Dr. Rollers were believed superior due to cross linking or something like that - I think it's buried somewhere in the long thread.
If Dr. Fernandes says that the Dr. Roller brand rollers do not creat enough holes - can't we fix that by just passing more times over the skin with the roller?
Oh by the way, I am still loving the bromelain powder mixed with cleansing oil to remove flakes - I leave the paste on my skin about 10 minutes, then rinse off - my skin feels like silk afterward. I just ordered some papain powder from GOW to see if that works just as well - these are basically enzyme peels that "eat" dead skin and leave your intact skin alone.
I am not terribly concerned about rolling too much "stuff" into my skin..as long as I roll the right stuff. I have probably read too many articles detailing how much product is wasted since it cannot penetrate the skin by topical application only.
BF |
BF, I'm sure the Dr. Rollers are effective. The cross-linking is what I was referring to as "the pattern" of the Dr. Roller. That is what I wanted. And I think that the way in which you roll determine how many holes/channels are created.
You're right - I'm personally thrilled not to be wasting my products for a change.
Where do you buy your bromelain? I would love to try this! ~ 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 2:52 pm |
Thank you JJ for the link. Once again it is from a seller of the dermaroller product, so I am not all that comfortable accepting it as fact. I did however read through the article they cite by Dr Fernandes entitled Minimally Invasive Collagen Induction. This article specifically mentions using a roller of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm needle length. He also discusses the wound healing response and states that the bleeding is necessary since it is the blood which carries the necessary growth factors needed to produce new collagen (I am paraphrasing it into simple English).
Perhaps a needle of 1.0 mm is regarded by Dr Fernandes as minimal, considering he did his earlier rolls using 3.0 mm needles? I still do not see any support for the 0.5 mm roller for collagen building. I believe needles less than 1.0 mm are for product penetration only (unless you are rolling an area which has an extremely thin epidermis; the thickness of the dermis is irrelevant in this procedure). |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:12 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Lacy, regarding the question of whether glycolic acid peels build collagen, according to The Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, they do. See: http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2001/01000/Quantitative_and_Qualitative_Effects_of_Chemical.36.aspx
"One hundred Skh:HR-1 hairless mice were photo-aged by use of chronic ultraviolet B irradiation for 14 weeks. After irradiation the animals were randomly distributed into five groups of 20 mice each: group 1, control; group 2, 50% glycolic acid peel; group 3, 30% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 4, 50% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 5, phenol peel (Baker-Gordon formula). The respective peeling agent was applied to the dorsal skin of each animal while it was fully anesthetized. Punch biopsies were taken at several times after peel for histological and biochemical analysis. Glycosaminoglycan content was assessed at 14, 28, and 60 days using a colorimetric assay.
Collagen content per unit volume increased initially 3 days after the procedure in all chemical peel groups, declining on day 7, and peaking again on day 28.
Everything I have ever read about glycolic acid peels states that they contribute to collagen production. I am glad to know I did not endure those 50% GA peels in vain. ~ JJ |
Here is the rest of that cited article:
Collagen content per unit volume increased initially 3 days after the procedure in all chemical peel groups, declining on day 7, and peaking again on day 28. Significant elevations (p < 0.04) were seen in the 30% trichloroacetic acid, 50% trichloroacetic acid, and phenol peels on days 3 and 28 in comparison with controls. This increase in collagen content was not maintained and returned to control values by 60 days. Glycosaminoglycan content per unit volume was elevated initially after peel with significant elevation (p < 0.02) in the 50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol groups on days 14 and 28. This increase in glycosaminoglycan content was not maintained beyond 28 days and declined to control values by day 60 in all groups.
Histological examination demonstrated an increase in dermal thickness in the 50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol groups in comparison with controls by day 60. Under polarized light all chemical peel groups at day 60 demonstrated a reorganization of collagen in the reticular and papillary dermis. The elastotic masses that are pathognomonic of photo aging were present in the control group but were absent in the peel groups and demonstrated a reorganization of the elastic fibers in the dermis. This effect was deeper in the dermis in the deeper peel groups (50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol peel). The beneficial effects of chemical peel were due to a combination of two findings; a reorganization in dermal structural elements and an increase in dermal volume. These effects were more pronounced in the deeper peel groups.
It doesn't seem to discuss much about the 50% glycolic peel group at all. It does focus on the deeper peels (groups 3, 4 and 5 in this study). Glycolic acid peels are superficial; they only affect the epidermal layer of the skin. Removing of the epidermis is painful yes, but it does not induce collagen building to the best of my knowledge. Sorry for taking the thread off-toppic but I did want to address this study on peels. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:22 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Lacy, regarding the question of whether glycolic acid peels build collagen, according to The Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, they do. See: http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/Abstract/2001/01000/Quantitative_and_Qualitative_Effects_of_Chemical.36.aspx
"One hundred Skh:HR-1 hairless mice were photo-aged by use of chronic ultraviolet B irradiation for 14 weeks. After irradiation the animals were randomly distributed into five groups of 20 mice each: group 1, control; group 2, 50% glycolic acid peel; group 3, 30% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 4, 50% trichloroacetic acid peel; group 5, phenol peel (Baker-Gordon formula). The respective peeling agent was applied to the dorsal skin of each animal while it was fully anesthetized. Punch biopsies were taken at several times after peel for histological and biochemical analysis. Glycosaminoglycan content was assessed at 14, 28, and 60 days using a colorimetric assay.
Collagen content per unit volume increased initially 3 days after the procedure in all chemical peel groups, declining on day 7, and peaking again on day 28.
Everything I have ever read about glycolic acid peels states that they contribute to collagen production. I am glad to know I did not endure those 50% GA peels in vain. ~ JJ |
Here is the rest of that cited article:
Collagen content per unit volume increased initially 3 days after the procedure in all chemical peel groups, declining on day 7, and peaking again on day 28. Significant elevations (p < 0.04) were seen in the 30% trichloroacetic acid, 50% trichloroacetic acid, and phenol peels on days 3 and 28 in comparison with controls. This increase in collagen content was not maintained and returned to control values by 60 days. Glycosaminoglycan content per unit volume was elevated initially after peel with significant elevation (p < 0.02) in the 50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol groups on days 14 and 28. This increase in glycosaminoglycan content was not maintained beyond 28 days and declined to control values by day 60 in all groups.
Histological examination demonstrated an increase in dermal thickness in the 50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol groups in comparison with controls by day 60. Under polarized light all chemical peel groups at day 60 demonstrated a reorganization of collagen in the reticular and papillary dermis. The elastotic masses that are pathognomonic of photo aging were present in the control group but were absent in the peel groups and demonstrated a reorganization of the elastic fibers in the dermis. This effect was deeper in the dermis in the deeper peel groups (50% trichloroacetic acid and phenol peel). The beneficial effects of chemical peel were due to a combination of two findings; a reorganization in dermal structural elements and an increase in dermal volume. These effects were more pronounced in the deeper peel groups.
It doesn't seem to discuss much about the 50% glycolic peel group at all. It does focus on the deeper peels (groups 3, 4 and 5 in this study). Glycolic acid peels are superficial; they only affect the epidermal layer of the skin. Removing of the epidermis is painful yes, but it does not induce collagen building to the best of my knowledge. Sorry for taking the thread off-toppic but I did want to address this study on peels. |
Yes, I read the entire article. You obviously did not absorb it in the same way I did. Glycolic peels help to generate new collagen, both in my opinion, in the opinion of dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and per this article. I did not bold the words emphasized for fun. Frankly, I don't have the time to do this with you, Lacy. No matter what study I offer, you will insist that it is not adequate. A blunt refusal to believe is certainly your prerogative, but any further searching to prove any point to you will not be done by me. I have no interest in beating my head against a brick wall. And it is indeed off topic.
An email is being sent to Dr. Fernandes to determine whether a 0.5mm roller will indeed induce collagen, which I am sure is a question all users of 0.5mm rollers would like to have answered.
I can only reiterate that I am quite happy with what I am doing and my skin loves it. I wish the same for you, Lacy. I have no idea what your skincare consists of, but you have stated that you do not use a dermaroller. Perhaps if and when you do, you will be able to note changes that are occurring in your skin, just as I continue to do. |
_________________
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 4:28 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| 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. |
Lovely, Riley! It will be nice to have his answer to that particular 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 5:22 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Yes, I read the entire article. You obviously did not absorb it in the same way I did. Glycolic peels help to generate new collagen, both in my opinion, in the opinion of dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and per this article. I did not bold the words emphasized for fun. Frankly, I don't have the time to do this with you, Lacy. No matter what study I offer, you will insist that it is not adequate. A blunt refusal to believe is certainly your prerogative, but any further searching to prove any point to you will not be done by me. I have no interest in beating my head against a brick wall. And it is indeed off topic.
An email is being sent to Dr. Fernandes to determine whether a 0.5mm roller will indeed induce collagen, which I am sure is a question all users of 0.5mm rollers would like to have answered.
I can only reiterate that I am quite happy with what I am doing and my skin loves it. I wish the same for you, Lacy. I have no idea what your skincare consists of, but you have stated that you do not use a dermaroller. Perhaps if and when you do, you will be able to note changes that are occurring in your skin, just as I continue to do. |
I too look forward to any reply you or Riley receive back from Dr Fernandes. I sincerely hope any changes that you are noting in the appearance of your skin are indeed due to the formation of new collagen and dermarolling. I realize you are busy now and this is off-topic from the main point of your thread, but when you have some idle time on your hands you may wish to review the following:
Chemical Peels
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1125365-overview
Chemical peels in aesthetic dermatology: an update 2009.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19744174
Clinical improvement of photoaged skin with 50% glycolic acid. A double-blind vehicle-controlled study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634809
Wishing you continued success with your dermarolling adventures and happy holidays to you and yours! |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:22 pm |
Much of this has been covered in the long Dermarolling thread. I might remind everyone that much of the information provided by Dr Fernandez is for clinical rolling - rolling that takes place in a doctor's office with medical supervision. I've seen the photos of his patients during the treatment - their faces covered in blood, it is an extremely aggressive treatment.
Don't forget we're doing this at home, with no medical supervision. Collagen building or not, I prefer to stick with a shorter needle length which does not cause as much trauma. That's why I was attracted to this thread in the first place.
Having said all of that, I regard myself as a veteran roller and was one of the first on the Forum to try rolling with a 1.5mm roller. I never managed to produce a bloodied skin though - but I did find it a quite painful process.
I think we have to remember that there is a big difference in a clinical roll and a home roll. I've said this many times. One of the reasons I stopped watching the main Dermaroller thread is that I was horrified by what some members were getting up to without having done any research into the subject.
Rolling at home with shorter needles might not result in the same collagen and elastin production as a clinical roll. But I believe that, in my case, it has pretty much resurfaced my skin and made it much thicker with very few wrinkles. It has not, however, made any improvement to facial sag. |
_________________
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 5:57 pm |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
Yes, I read the entire article. You obviously did not absorb it in the same way I did. Glycolic peels help to generate new collagen, both in my opinion, in the opinion of dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and per this article. I did not bold the words emphasized for fun. Frankly, I don't have the time to do this with you, Lacy. No matter what study I offer, you will insist that it is not adequate. A blunt refusal to believe is certainly your prerogative, but any further searching to prove any point to you will not be done by me. I have no interest in beating my head against a brick wall. And it is indeed off topic.
An email is being sent to Dr. Fernandes to determine whether a 0.5mm roller will indeed induce collagen, which I am sure is a question all users of 0.5mm rollers would like to have answered.
I can only reiterate that I am quite happy with what I am doing and my skin loves it. I wish the same for you, Lacy. I have no idea what your skincare consists of, but you have stated that you do not use a dermaroller. Perhaps if and when you do, you will be able to note changes that are occurring in your skin, just as I continue to do. |
I too look forward to any reply you or Riley receive back from Dr Fernandes. I sincerely hope any changes that you are noting in the appearance of your skin are indeed due to the formation of new collagen and dermarolling. I realize you are busy now and this is off-topic from the main point of your thread, but when you have some idle time on your hands you may wish to review the following:
Chemical Peels
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1125365-overview
Chemical peels in aesthetic dermatology: an update 2009.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19744174
Clinical improvement of photoaged skin with 50% glycolic acid. A double-blind vehicle-controlled study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8634809
Wishing you continued success with your dermarolling adventures and happy holidays to you and yours! |
Lacy, thank you for the links! When I can actually sit down and read, I intend to read all of these. I'm with you - I am very interested in seeing what Dr. Fernandes says. I am so annoyed with myself for getting all involved in this when I knew I didn't have the time for it. But it's just so very interesting!!! Now I'm playing catch-up, but after things calm down, I will definitely plan a day to do nothing but soak up information. Again, I hope your holidays are wonderful! ~ 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 6:15 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
Much of this has been covered in the long Dermarolling thread. I might remind everyone that much of the information provided by Dr Fernandez is for clinical rolling - rolling that takes place in a doctor's office with medical supervision. I've seen the photos of his patients during the treatment - their faces covered in blood, it is an extremely aggressive treatment.
Don't forget we're doing this at home, with no medical supervision. Collagen building or not, I prefer to stick with a shorter needle length which does not cause as much trauma. That's why I was attracted to this thread in the first place.
Having said all of that, I regard myself as a veteran roller and was one of the first on the Forum to try rolling with a 1.5mm roller. I never managed to produce a bloodied skin though - but I did find it a quite painful process.
I think we have to remember that there is a big difference in a clinical roll and a home roll. I've said this many times. One of the reasons I stopped watching the main Dermaroller thread is that I was horrified by what some members were getting up to without having done any research into the subject.
Rolling at home with shorter needles might not result in the same collagen and elastin production as a clinical roll. But I believe that, in my case, it has pretty much resurfaced my skin and made it much thicker with very few wrinkles. It has not, however, made any improvement to facial sag. |
Keliu, you're absolutely right - there is an entire thread devoted to rolling with longer needles. I remember when you were rolling with the 1.5mm roller, and you are definitely a veteran roller! I'm sure your skin looks amazing.
I too plan to stick with the shorter needles regardless of Dr. Fernandes' answer. And I hope that we are able to access more information on the 0.5mm's capabilites. Even if it is determined that the small roller is not doing CIT (although I firmly believe that it IS), I will still be happy with the tightening/toning/thickening that I have found to be a result of rolling with these small needles in such an incredibly short time. I for one was never aiming at doing clinical rolls at home. If I want to go to that extreme, I will go to a doctor to perform the roll. No blood for me, thanks!
I love hearing about results from actual users of products, which is why I visit EDS. Thank you so much for your LED/Green Tea tip. Today is the third day I have used it, and the results are great. ~ 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 9:12 pm |
Here is the question posted by Bethany to Dr Liebl re length of needles - and his reply:
Question about collagen formation
May 17, 2008 by dermaroller
Mr. Liebl,
I have been reading extensively on collagen induction, and am excited to learn about such a compelling product. Having endured 4 painful Fraxel treatments with limited results (and horrid swelling), I am very much looking forward to experiencing the results you are able to achieve.
I do have one question that remains unanswered, and that pertains to needle length. I am hoping you can enlighten me in this respect.
In the abstract “STIMULATION OF CELL GROWTH” it stated that collagen fibers were not produced deeper than 0.5 to 0.6mm even though 1.5mm needles were used for penetration (quote listed below).
Does this mean that a Dermaroller with a needle length of LESS than 1.5mm can produce these same results? If yes, what is the shortest needle than can effectively impact moderate wrinkles, pigmentation issues, and other anti-aging concerns? (I do understand that both needle length and eletrical charge may come into play regarding results)
Thank you for providing an alternative to lasers, etc….your work is very much appreciated. I look forward to your reply.
Bethany
Quote from Abstract:
The theory expounded by some experts ‘the longer the needle the better’, is not supported by scientific evidence! After evaluation of all of the biopsies in Dr Schwarz’s study, new collagen fibers were only found close to the corium and not deeper than 0.5 to 0.6 mm. Although the Dermaroller model MF8 has 1.5 mm long needles, no significant new collagen and elastin formation could be found in the sub-dermal tissue. It may be possible that longer needles may have a higher electrical potential, but needles longer than 1.5 mm increase the risk to damage nerves and vessels, and this again will result in haematomas and possible nerve paralysis.
Posted in Collagen formation | Tagged Collagen formation | 1 Comment
One Response
on May 17, 2008 at 11:52 am | Reply dermaroller
Dear Bethany,
Thank you for contacting the Dermaroller BLOG with your question in respect of new collagen formation stimulated by Microneedling with the Dermaroller.
Although we already know a lot of the mechanism of action by needling the skin, we are still investing time and effort to find more answers. In the blind study of Dr. Schwarz only needles with 1.5 mm were used. We never made biopsies from skin treated with shorter needles. But we have proof that even shorter needles like such from the Home Care Dermaroller (0.2 mm) thickens the epidermis by 30 to 40% when used twice a week for about 2 to 3 month.
Why collagen and elastin fibers only form close to the corium, not deeper than 0,5 to 0.6 mm, can only be speculated. Our skin has about 200 nerve receptors per square centimeter in the upper layer of the dermis. They sense first any change (like injury) in the electrical field of skin cells and the extra cellular electrolyte. Skin cells react to this change be transmitting growth factors (TGF) that stimulate cell proliferations, i.e. fibroblasts.
As the injury (needle prick) comes from outside, from the top layer of the skin, fibroblasts most likely are directed toward the uppermost point of injury in order to close the penetration opening. Needle prick channels, not bigger than 0.1 mm in diameter close very quickly, and after 10 minutes they only have a seize of 0.03 mm, then they finally close completely. Properly tooled needles do NOT damage the skin like a cutting device or a laser would do. As fibroblasts do not have to REPAIR any damage after needling they transform directly into collagen fibers, but not into fiber bundles as it happens in a fibrotic tissue. They somehow integrate in the given collagen pattern that gives skin its elasticity.
It is very difficult to understand the difference of cell renewal by microneedling and procedures such as fractional laser devices that uses skin repair mechanisms (fibrosis). However, any heat beam above 48°C transforms protein into fibrosis, also known as scar tissue. With resurfacing CO2 lasers the skin is removed horizontally in order to force it to build up new tissue. Fractionated laser beams enter the skin vertically and the laser beam sets many fine scars in the dermis. The term “fractional” means: the skin has to be thermally punctured in fractions with healthy (not lasered) tissue in between the thermal punctures. The problem seems to be, that no one can tell in a follow-up session, which skin point was lasered before and which one not. Theoretically the same little scar can be hit several times and the results are below expectations. It is often reported that thermal skin treatments are painful. Also this is easy to understand, simply because burn wounds heal relatively slow and thermally melted nerve receptors obviously have a longer pain memory.
Let me summarize:
The skin reacts to Dermarolling by cell regeneration.
Skin reacts to thermal or any other ablative procedures with the body’s repair mechanism – fibrosis.
(For further information, please refer to the article of Christopher S. J. Dunkin et al.: Scarring Occurs at a Critical Depth of Skin Injury…, published 2007 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons).
Best regards
Horst Liebl |
_________________
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 9:48 pm |
Keliu, what is your take on this? I promise you I am reading this with an open mind, and what I am gathering is that the 0.5mm needles are not only collagen inducing, but also create the right kind of collagen fibers (as do all of the needles 0.5 and longer). And the 0.2mm needles thicken the skin. I especially like this part:
As fibroblasts do not have to REPAIR any damage after needling they transform directly into collagen fibers, but not into fiber bundles as it happens in a fibrotic tissue. They somehow integrate in the given collagen pattern that gives skin its elasticity.
Thank you so much for finding this. It really makes you stop and think how miraculous the skin is, doesn't it? ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:28 am |
Well, my take on all of this is that there have not been enough scientific studies done on home rolling with a 0.5mm roller, if any. Most of the unbiased studies that I have read are concerned with clinical treatments.
The bottom line is, that needling has only become popular within the last couple of years - and it's not really something that doctors recommend you do at home - so to some extent, we're all guinea pigs in this (same with LED in my opinion).
However, from what I have read, and from my own experience, I'm inclined to believe that the 0.5mm roller does have a regenerating effect on the skin. How much collagen and elastin it's actually building, I wouldn't have a clue - maybe it is less than with a 1.5, maybe not. One thing is for sure - I will continue to roll! |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:46 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
Well, my take on all of this is that there have not been enough scientific studies done on home rolling with a 0.5mm roller, if any. Most of the unbiased studies that I have read are concerned with clinical treatments.
The bottom line is, that needling has only become popular within the last couple of years - and it's not really something that doctors recommend you do at home - so to some extent, we're all guinea pigs in this (same with LED in my opinion).
|
Yes, my feelings exactly. You are always so well spoken, Keliu! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:09 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
Well, my take on all of this is that there have not been enough scientific studies done on home rolling with a 0.5mm roller, if any. Most of the unbiased studies that I have read are concerned with clinical treatments.
The bottom line is, that needling has only become popular within the last couple of years - and it's not really something that doctors recommend you do at home - so to some extent, we're all guinea pigs in this (same with LED in my opinion).
However, from what I have read, and from my own experience, I'm inclined to believe that the 0.5mm roller does have a regenerating effect on the skin. How much collagen and elastin it's actually building, I wouldn't have a clue - maybe it is less than with a 1.5, maybe not. One thing is for sure - I will continue to roll! |
Copying this chart from page 21 of the DermaRoller thread:
| lunarmm wrote: |
Needle Length---Max Penetration
0.25 mm --------0.07 mm
0.50 mm --------0.30 mm
1.00 mm --------0.70 mm
1.50 mm --------1.30 mm
2.20 mm --------1.50 mm |
From Bethany's letter to Dr Liebl cited above:
"...new collagen fibers were only found close to the corium and not deeper than 0.5 to 0.6 mm. Although the Dermaroller model MF8 has 1.5 mm long needles ..."
Just a reminder to anyone reading the letter and it's response, the corium is an alternate term for what we usually call the dermis. If you are able to locate the link for Dr Schwarz's study you will see actual photographs of the skin biopsies showing the formation of new collagen; it occurs at the top of the dermis, just below the rete ridges. Even though the 1.5 mm needles pierced deeper than that, there was no collagen formation in the lower dermis.
To summarize, dermarolling with 1.5 mm needles results in new collagen at the 0.5 to 0.6 mm level of the skin. A clinical roll with a 0.5 mm roller will penetrate the skin just 0.30 mm (assuming the above chart is correct). That's my interpretation of this anyway! |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:23 am |
I wasn't sleepy at bedtime last night, so I went to the old, gigantic Dermaroller thread. I skipped the first part of the thread and began on page 40. 10-15 pages made me sleepy (new antidote to insomia here - read dermaroller thread ). I did find lots of information from Bethany in that section of the thread, stating her belief and the belief of Dr. Horst Liebl that the 0.5mm roller is a "medical-grade roller" capable of inducing collagen. I knew I had read that, and I'm glad I pinpointed it for my own satisfaction.
I believe that studies concerning the 0.5 as a medical-grade roller simply do not exist, but two things that Dr. Liebl said struck me:
"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." ; and this
"Even for physicians needling and its mechanism of action is widely unknown. I just came back from a lecture and workshop and only after the lecture, they suddenly stood up and admitted that 'they did not know how cell biology works'."
It's my firm belief that if I wait until studies are available and in agreement, I will be too old to roll. ~ JJ |
_________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away ~ Author Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:25 pm |
| jjbeacham wrote: |
I wasn't sleepy at bedtime last night, so I went to the old, gigantic Dermaroller thread. I skipped the first part of the thread and began on page 40. 10-15 pages made me sleepy (new antidote to insomia here - read dermaroller thread ). I did find lots of information from Bethany in that section of the thread, stating her belief and the belief of Dr. Horst Liebl that the 0.5mm roller is a "medical-grade roller" capable of inducing collagen. I knew I had read that, and I'm glad I pinpointed it for my own satisfaction.
I believe that studies concerning the 0.5 as a medical-grade roller simply do not exist, but two things that Dr. Liebl said struck me:
"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." ; and this
"Even for physicians needling and its mechanism of action is widely unknown. I just came back from a lecture and workshop and only after the lecture, they suddenly stood up and admitted that 'they did not know how cell biology works'."
It's my firm belief that if I wait until studies are available and in agreement, I will be too old to roll. ~ JJ |
Yes from everything I have read the on this site as well as external websites, the The Dermaroller™ CIT-8 is considered to be a medical grade roller. It is meant to be used in a clinical setting that follows the same protocol as the longer needled rollers. That means applying a numbing agent, and the roll is administered by a properly trained medical person.
When someone does there own rolling, instincts come into play. When it hurts, the force of rolling is automatically reduced. Pain aversion is just a natural instinct. A numbing agent will decrease the sensation of pain somewhat, but for those long needles analgesics have been used in the past, including intravenous ones to reduce the sensation of pain to the patient. When a clinician does a roll on someone else, they do not physically "feel" another person's pain (although they will register the physical reactions to that pain).
The above quote by Dr Liebl clearly indicates to me that the 0.5 mm roller is primarily for product penetration; he states the "minuscule" trauma caused to the dermis will build collagen but admits elsewhere there have been no studies done to verify this statement. He is, I am assuming, referring to a roll done by a clinician and not a roll done by the patient at home. (This may be an incorrect assumption on my part.)
I do not believe anyone manufactures a 0.5 mm roller for home use. They are made strictly for use in a clinical setting.
I do hope that your rolls are actually producing collagen for you JJ, I just don't see how it would be possible for this to happen given what little we do know about needles of this length. Do you use a topical numbing agent with your 0.5 mm roller?
I know you said you have some inflammation from doing product penetration rolls with the shorter roller; do you think that your reported increase in the thickness of the epidermis is interfering with the longer 0.5 mm rolls (by that I mean a thicker epidermis inhibits your longer needles from actually reaching into the dermis)? |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
| Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:11 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. |
|
 |
|
|
