ArticlePharmaceutics2022
Influence of Mechanical Skin Treatments on Dermal Penetration Efficacy of Active Ingredients.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Microneedling Mesotherapy, Chemical Exfoliation and Combination Therapy on Selected Skin Parameters and Cutibacterium acnes Colonization in Women With Oily Skin.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- High-pressure microjet system enhances epidermal delivery of hydrophilic actives.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Mechanically Induced Skin Renewal: Evidence-Based Insights Into Clinical, Structural and Inflammatory Changes Activated by Microneedling, Microdermabrasion and Microvibration.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Article
- Functional Nanostructured Lipid Carrier-Enriched Hydrogels Tailored to Repair Damaged Epidermal Barrier.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- SmartFilm Tablets for Improved Oral Delivery of Poorly Soluble Drugs.Pharmaceutics · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective dermal penetration of active ingredients (AI) is a major task in the formulation of topical products. Besides the vehicle, the mechanical skin treatments are also considered to impact the penetration efficacy of AI. In particular, professional skin treatments, i.e., professional cosmetic skin treatments, are considered to be optimal for the dermal delivery of AI. However, a systematic study that proves these theories is not yet available and was therefore performed in this study while utilizing an ex vivo porcine ear model with subsequent digital image analysis. Hydrophilic and lipophilic fluorescent dyes were used as AI surrogates and were applied onto the skin without and with professional skin treatments. The skin hydration and the penetration efficacy were determined, respectively. Results showed that professional skin treatments with massage were able to increase the skin hydration, whereas a professional skin treatment without massage could not increase the skin hydration when compared to skin without professional skin treatment. Regarding the penetration efficacy, it was found that all parameters tested, i.e., type of professional skin treatment, lipophilicity of the AI, and the time point at which the AI are applied onto the skin, can have a tremendous impact on the penetration efficacy of the AI. The most effective penetration and the most effective skin hydration is achieved with a professional skin treatment that includes a professional skin massage. This kind of skin treatment can therefore be used to improve dermal drug delivery.
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.