The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treatment of Facial Rhytids with a Nonablative Laser: A Clinical and Histologic Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current facial resurfacing modalities (laser, chemical peels, and dermabrasion) remove the epidermis and thus cause open wounds which carry significant risks and extended recovery periods. The nonablative laser is a novel Nd:YAG system designed to alleviate facial rhytids without injuring the epidermis. This new modality may offer patients rhytid removal without the risk seen in currently used resurfacing techniques. OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel nonablative laser system and assess its safety profile and efficacy. METHODS: Ten patients received laser treatments of their periocular rhytids and postauricular skin. Clinical variables (rhytid severity, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, scarring, and level of discomfort) were assessed at 1 and 3 months posttreatment. Postauricular skin biopsies were taken both pre- and posttreatment for histologic analysis. RESULTS: Patient discomfort was minimal. Three months posttreatment, 4 of 10 patients showed a one-point improvement in periocular rhytid severity when judged on a six-point scale. The results were not statistically significant. Biopsy analysis showed a small posttreatment increase in the amount of dermal collagen in three patients. A small decrease in collagen was noted in one patient. Three patients also showed a small posttreatment increase in the degree homogenization of dermal collagen. No change from baseline was noted in other assessed histologic parameters. Complications observed included hyperpigmentation in three patients and pitted scarring in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: The nonablative laser gave clinically subtle and statistically insignificant improvement in rhytid severity. Unfortunately its use was associated with complications that included hyperpigmentation and scarring. This technology may eventually offer patients a new resurfacing option, but its efficacy and complication rate must be improved first.
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
Cites
Pathophysiology of Premature Skin Aging Induced by Ultraviolet Light
Fisher, G. J., Wang, Z., Datta, S. C., Varani, J., Kang, S., & Voorhees, J. J. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199711133372003 · Cited by 1,501
Cited by
Manstein, D., Herron, G. S., Sink, R. K., Tanner, H., & Anderson, R. R. (2004) · Lasers in Surgery and Medicine · doi:10.1002/lsm.20048 · Cited by 1,605
The spectrum of laser skin resurfacing: Nonablative, fractional, and ablative laser resurfacing
Alexiades-Armenakas, M. R., Dover, J. S., & Arndt, K. A. (2008) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2008.01.003 · Cited by 580
Bitter, P. H. (2000) · Dermatologic Surgery · doi:10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.00085.x · Cited by 422
Complications of Ablative and Nonablative Lasers and Light Sources
Tanzi, E. L., & Alster, T. S. (2008) · Complications in Cutaneous Surgery · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73152-0_13 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Menaker, G. M., Wrone, D. A., Williams, R. M., & Moy, R. L.
- Venue
- Dermatologic Surgery
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 440-444
- ISSN
- 1076-0512 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053529957
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Treatment of Facial Rhytids with a Nonablative Laser: A Clinical and Histologic Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1524-4725.1999.08158.x
- The paper
- Menaker, G. M., Wrone, D. A., Williams, R. M., & Moy, R. L. (1999). Treatment of Facial Rhytids with a Nonablative Laser: A Clinical and Histologic Study. Dermatologic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.1999.08158.x
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.