ReviewJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Safety and Tolerability of the 1440- and 1927-nm Non-Ablative Fractional Diode Laser System for Skin Resurfacing: A Review of Current Literature.
Review in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-ablative dermal remodeling lasers in acquired dermal macular hyperpigmentation: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Safety and Tolerability of the 1440- and 1927-nm Non-Ablative Fractional Diode Laser System for Skin Resurfacing: A Review of Current Literature.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnergy-based devices, such as lasers, provide effective treatments for skin resurfacing. Ablative fractional lasers have a higher risk of adverse events (AEs), like scarring and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, particularly in patients with darker skin types, than non-ablative fractional lasers. The 1440- and 1927-nm non-ablative fractional diode laser (NFDL) system is indicated for use in dermatological procedures requiring the coagulation of soft tissue and for general skin resurfacing procedures.
aimTo help inform clinical decision-making about the dual 1440/1927-nm NFDL system, particularly for treating patients with diverse skin types who require safe and effective resurfacing treatments.
methodsA PubMed search of literature was conducted to review safety and tolerability outcomes from clinical studies of 1440- and 1927-nm NFDL treatments.
resultsExpected skin reactions, including erythema, edema, and crusting, were mild to moderate and self-limited for concurrent and individual use of the 1440- and 1927-nm handpieces. Mild discomfort and heat sensation, which were also expected, indicated that treatment was well tolerated. Safety was also demonstrated in patients with skin of color, with no serious AEs. Levels of patient satisfaction were high.
conclusionsThe dual 1440/1927-nm NFDL system is a safe and well-tolerated option for resurfacing of diverse skin types with minimal postprocedural downtime and reduced risk of AEs relative to ablative lasers.
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.