The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Skin responses to fractional photothermolysis
Open accessAbstract
Background and Objective: Fractional photothermolysis (FP) is a new concept using arrays of microscopic thermal damage patterns to stimulate a therapeutic response. We analyzed epidermal and dermal response to FP with the aim of correlating histological and clinical response. Study Design/Materials and Methods: Twelve subjects received a single treatment with a prototype diode laser emitting at a wavelength of 1,500 nm, delivering 5 mJ per microscopic treatment zone (MTZ), and a density of 1,600 MTZs/cm 2 on the forearm. Biopsies were procured over a period of 3 months. The biopsies were analyzed by two blinded dermatopathologists using hematoxylin and eosin (Hematoxylin and Eosin Stain), Elastica von Gieson, nitro‐blue‐tetrazolium‐chloride (NBTC) viability, and immunohistochemistry stains. Furthermore, the treatment sites were evaluated in vivo by confocal microscopy. Results and Discussion: Twenty‐four hours after fractional photothermolysis, the continuity of the epidermal basal cell layer is restored. Complete epidermal regeneration is obtained 7 days after the treatment. Microscopic epidermal necrotic debris (MENDs) are seen as early as 1 day after FP. MENDs contain melanin pigment, and are shed from the epidermis within 7 days. Evidence of increased collagen III production is shown with immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining 7 days after FP. IHC for heat shock protein 70 (HSP 70) shows the expression of HSP 1 day after FP, and IHC for alpha smooth muscle actin shows the presence of myofibroblasts 7 days after FP. These findings are concordant with the induction of a wound healing response by FP. There is no evidence of residual dermal fibrosis 3 months after treatment. Conclusion: A single treatment with fractional photothermolysis induces a wound healing response in the dermis. A mechanism for the precise removal of epidermal melanin is described, in which MENDs act as a melanin shuttle. Lasers Surg. Med. 38:142–149, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ganceviciene, R., Liakou, A. I., Theodoridis, A., Makrantonaki, E., & Zouboulis, C. C. (2012) · Dermato-Endocrinology · doi:10.4161/derm.22804 · Cited by 844
The Use of Fractional Laser Photothermolysis for the Treatment of Atrophic Scars
ALSTER, T. S., TANZI, E. L., & LAZARUS, M. (2007) · Dermatologic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00042728-200703000-00006 · Cited by 333
Bipolar fractional radiofrequency treatment induces neoelastogenesis and neocollagenesis
Hantash, B. M., Ubeid, A. A., Chang, H., Kafi, R., & Renton, B. (2009) · Lasers in Surgery and Medicine · doi:10.1002/lsm.20731 · Cited by 307
Fractional CO2 laser‐assisted drug delivery
Hædersdal, M., Sakamoto, F. H., Farinelli, W. A., Doukas, A. G., Tam, J., & Anderson, R. R. (2010) · Lasers in Surgery and Medicine · doi:10.1002/lsm.20860 · Cited by 273
Self-citationReview of Fractional Photothermolysis: Treatment Indications and Efficacy
Tierney, E. P., Kouba, D. J., & Hanke, W. C. (2009) · Dermatologic Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01258.x · Cited by 189
Metadata
- Authors
- Laubach, H., Tannous, Z., Anderson, R. R., & Manstein, D.
- Venue
- Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-01-03
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 142-149
- ISSN
- 0196-8092 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9101
- OpenAlex
- W2041210626
- Cited by
- 495
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Skin responses to fractional photothermolysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lsm.20254
- The paper
- Laubach, H., Tannous, Z., Anderson, R. R., & Manstein, D. (2006). Skin responses to fractional photothermolysis. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20254
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.