ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 20-MHz high-intensity focused ultrasound for tattoo removal without pigment-specific optical targeting and with evidence for an ablation-associated transepidermal extrusion pathway.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Toxicological problems of tattoo removal: characterization of femtosecond laser-induced fragments of Pigment Green 7 and Green Concentrate tattoo ink.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Challenges in laser tattoo removal: the impact of titanium dioxide on photodegradation of yellow inks.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- "For Asia Market Only": A Green Tattoo Ink between Safety and Regulations.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The tattoos removal has become an issue upon spread of the tattooing practice worldwide and hindsight regrets. Lasers are typically used for the purpose, though some colours such as green are considered "recalcitrant" to the treatment. In the current investigation, we aim at determining the efficacy of removal of a green ink water dispersion, using 5 laser treatments: Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode and Ruby nanosecond laser, keeping the total irradiated energy constant. The UV-Vis spectroscopy of the treated samples indicate that Nd:YAG picosecond laser is most effective, and the Ruby nanosecond laser is the least efficient. Fragment compounds generated from the pigment and siloxanes are common to all treatments, whereas hydrocarbon emerge by a larger amount upon Nd:YAG nanosecond treatment. Fibres are formed upon picosecond treatments and when operating in array mode, and lamellae are achieved by Ruby nanosecond laser treatment. Residual particles suspensions are very heterogeneous upon nanosecond treatments.
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.