ArticleBiomedical optics express2016
Quantitative monitoring of laser-treated engineered skin using optical coherence tomography.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skin pore imaging using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a case report.Biomedical engineering letters · 2023Article
- Article
- Quantification and visualization of metastatic lung tumors in mice.Toxicological research · 2022Article
- Automatic Segmentation of Laser-Induced Injury OCT Images Based on a Deep Neural Network Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a 3.8-µm laser-induced skin injury and their repair with in vivo OCT imaging and noninvasive monitoring.Lasers in medical science · 2022Article
- Synthetic Retinoid Seletinoid G Improves Skin Barrier Function through Wound Healing and Collagen Realignment in Human Skin Equivalents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, laser therapy is a common method for treating various dermatological troubles such as acne and wrinkles because of its efficient and immediate skin enhancement. Although laser treatment has become a routine procedure in medical and cosmetic fields, the prevention of side-effects, such as hyperpigmentation, redness and burning, still remains a critical issue that needs to be addressed. In order to reduce the side-effects while attaining efficient therapeutic outcomes, it is essential to understand the light-skin interaction through evaluation of physiological changes before and after laser therapy. In this study, we introduce a quantitative tissue monitoring method based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) for the evaluation of tissue regeneration after laser irradiation. To create a skin injury model, we applied a fractional CO2 laser on a customized engineered skin model, which is analogous to human skin in terms of its basic biological function and morphology. The irradiated region in the skin was then imaged by a high-speed OCT system, and its morphologic changes were analyzed by automatic segmentation software. Volumetric OCT images in the laser treated area clearly visualized the wound healing progress at different time points and provided comprehensive information which cannot be acquired through conventional monitoring methods. The results showed that the laser wound in engineered skins was mostly recovered from within 1~2 days with a fast recovery time in the vertical direction. However, the entire recovery period varied widely depending on laser doses and skin type. Our results also indicated that OCT-guided laser therapy would be a very promising protocol for optimizing laser treatment for skin therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.