{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02676056338028169, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023004694835680753, 'mean_word_length': 4.549479166666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The self-recovery of facial skin barrier and erythema after nanochip treatment

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the degree of acute skin damage and the time required for the recovery of facial skin barrier function after the skin was treated with micro-needles and nanochips of various tip lengths. Methods: For this split face comparative study, a total of 16 subjects were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups. In the first group, one of the facial side of each subject was treated with 0.25-mm long nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.25-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. In the second group, one of the facial side was treated with 0.5-mm nanotips for a total of 6 times while the other facial side was treated with 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles with a straight blade for a total of 6 times. Evaluations for trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration and erythema were carried out at baseline, 0, 4, 8, 24, 48 and 72 hours after the treatment. Results: There was no significant difference in TEWL, skin hydration and erythema between the two facial sides of the subjects in the Group one who were treated with 0.25 mm nanochips and traditional micro-needles. However, in the subjects of the Group two, the mean TEWL of the facial side treated with 0.5 mm nanochips was relatively lower than that of the 0.5 mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 0, 4, 8 and 24 hours after the treatment. Mean erythema of the facial side treated with 0.5-mm nanochips micro-needles was also relatively lower than that of the 0.5-mm traditional micro-needles treated facial side at 8 hours after the treatment. Rapid recovery of skin barrier function was observed within 4–8 hours after treatment with various lengths of nanochips while it took at least 48–72 hours for recovery of skin barrier function after treatment with various lengths of traditional micro-needles as measured by TEWL. Conclusion: The skin disruption caused by nanotips treatment recovers quicker than the traditional microneedle treatment at equal lengths.