Dermal Proliferative Effect and Safety of Automicroneedle Therapy System (AMTS).
- Author:
Jae Hong KIM
1
;
Hwa Young PARK
;
Minyoung JUNG
;
Eung Ho CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Dermatology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea. choieh@yonsei.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Anti-aging;
Automicroneedle therapy system;
Dermal proliferation;
Microneedle therapy system;
Regeneration
- MeSH:
Acne Vulgaris;
Animals;
Blotting, Western;
Cicatrix;
Collagen;
Collagen Type I;
Head;
Matrix Metalloproteinase 13;
Mice;
Mice, Hairless;
Needles;
Regeneration;
Skin
- From:Korean Journal of Dermatology
2010;48(11):955-965
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Various topical cosmeceuticals and lasers have been used to treat photo-aged skin that has wrinkles, acne scars and dilated pores. The microneedle therapy system (MTS) that mechanically makes multiple holes on the skin has come into the limelight to treat these skin problems via stimulating collagen remodeling. The automicroneedle therapy system (AMTS) is a developed version of MTS and it has several advantages compared with conventional MTS. AMTS can achieve regular treatment results because of its automatically punching method. In addition, AMTS can treat smaller area and it has cost advantages due to the inexpensive disposable needle head. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the dermal proliferative effects and safety of AMTS on the skin compared with that of the conventional MTS roller. METHODS: Twelve hairless mice were divided into two groups; one group was treated with a 0.25 mm needle and the other group was treated with a 2 mm needle. The first group was subdivided into the AMTS-H and the MTS groups and the no treatment group as a control, while the second group was subdivided into the AMTS-H, AMTS, MTS and control groups. Each treated group underwent four procedures every other day. The dermal proliferative efficacies of the treatment were evaluated by the histology, including the dermal thickness and the densities of the collagen fibers. Western blot was also performed for the evaluation of the protein expression of procollagen type I and matrix metalloproteinase-13. For safety profiles, we performed gross observation, basal skin barrier function testing and histologic examination. RESULTS: Treatment by AMTS significantly increased dermal collagen synthesis and the dermal thickness in the hairless mice. In addition, the expression of procollagen type I protein was increased, which accounted for the increased dermal collagen density. There was no specific safety problem related to the treatment. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that AMTS is an effective, safe modality for treating skin problems that require dermal proliferation. We anticipate that AMTS could be a new therapeutic option for inducing dermal proliferation or regeneration.
