Cited by 199Skin Protection and AgingElasticity and Material ModelingFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques

Mechanical properties of human skin in vivo: a comparative evaluation in 300 men and women

Open access
Luebberding, S., Krueger, N., Kerscher, M.·2014·Skin Research and Technology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that the clinical genesis and onset of facial wrinkles as well as the morphology of the extracellular matrix differ between the sexes. The aim of this present clinical study was to do the first systematic assessment of gender-related differences in skin elasticity, with special focus on age-related changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 300 healthy male and female subjects (20-74 years) were selected following strict criteria including age, sun behavior or smoking habits. Skin mechanical properties were assessed at the cheek, neck, volar forearm and dorsum of the hand using a non-invasive suction device. RESULTS: Data analysis shows a significant negative correlation for all parameters and subject's age. At young age results of the relative parameters are higher for women, whereas absolute parameters are higher for men. Parameters referring to the recovery phase change stronger with aging. DISCUSSION: The present study verifies the progressive decline of the skin mechanical properties with aging. However, the elastic ability of the skin to recover after stretching is more strongly affected by the aging process than the firmness of the skin. Further, the mechanical properties change differently in men and woman over lifetime.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/srt.12094

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luebberding, S., Krueger, N., & Kerscher, M.
Affiliations
Universität Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Luebberding, S.
Venue
Skin Research and Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-25
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
127-135
ISSN
  • 0909-752X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0846
OpenAlex
W1967465908
Cited by
198
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
FWCI
12.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Skin Research and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Elasticity and Material Modeling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Facial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Keywords
skin biomechanics, skin elasticity, skin aging, sex differences, gender differences, skin firmness, facial wrinkles, extracellular matrix
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Female, Hardness, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Palpation, Physical Stimulation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sex Factors, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Viscosity, Reproducibility of Results, Skin Aging, Elastic Modulus, Young Adult

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