ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparative Evaluation of Argon and Helium Plasma for Controlled Epidermal Peeling and Dermal Remodeling in Human Skin Tissue.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlasma-based devices are increasingly used for skin rejuvenation and epidermal peeling; however, standardized parameters for different plasma gases remain insufficient. Argon (Ar) and helium (He) plasma exhibit distinct physical and biological characteristics, necessitating systematic evaluation to define safe and reproducible treatment conditions.
methodsAn ex vivo human skin explant model was used to evaluate Ar and He plasma generated by the Plasma Magic device under standardized pulse conditions (1 Hz, 500 ms, 2 pulses). Multiple output levels were assessed to identify parameters achieving complete epidermal peeling without dermal injury. Histological analyses and quantitative RT-PCR of extracellular matrix (ECM)-related genes were performed up to 14 days post-treatment. The effects of adjunctive Lactovesicle application were also evaluated.
resultsAr plasma at level 6 and He plasma at level 8 consistently induced uniform epidermal detachment while preserving dermal architecture and maintaining stable inflammatory cell counts. Collagen and elastin synthesis significantly increased between days 7 and 14, accompanied by marked upregulation of ECM-related genes. He plasma showed stronger long-term elastin synthesis and gene induction, whereas Ar plasma promoted faster initial peeling and early collagen remodeling. Lactovesicle application further enhanced ECM regeneration.
conclusionsOptimized Ar and He plasma parameters enable controlled epidermal peeling and sustained dermal remodeling without tissue damage. Plasma-assisted treatment, particularly when combined with topical Lactovesicle, represents a promising strategy for skin rejuvenation and transdermal therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42414643What 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.