Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

In Australia, skin cancer has the highest incidence of all cancer types, where Therapeutic Goods Association-approved, broad-spectrum sunscreens are recommended to prevent skin carcinogenesis. Commercial sunscreen ingredients, however, have been associated with negative impacts on human health, animal health and the environment. Together, the perceived harmful effects of commercial sunscreens have driven a trend towards home formulation of natural sunscreens, recipes for which are widely available online. Scientific evidence to support the efficacy of natural sunscreens, however, is lacking. We tested the efficacy of a natural homemade sunscreen (NHSS) published online by a wellness blogger with the aim to determine its photoprotective properties, beyond its ability to protect against erythema, compared to a commercially available SPF50 + sunscreen. The NHSS contained almond oil, coconut oil, shea butter, beeswax, red raspberry seed oil, carrot seed oil and zinc oxide. Skin explants were treated with either a commercial SPF50 + sunscreen, NHSS or base lotion prior to ultraviolet irradiation. Skin explants were assessed using immunohistochemistry for the levels of UVR-induced DNA damage in the form of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and 8-oxo-7, 8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine, as well as for sunburn cells and epidermal thickness. We demonstrate herein that NHSSs can reduce UVR-induced DNA damage and epidermal thickness, but do not effectively protect against the generation of sunburn cells. In comparison, SPF50 + sunscreen provided effective protection against all investigated parameters. These factors, however, are markers of short-term UVR-induced damage and there is as yet no evidence for NHSSs in prevention of skin carcinogenesis. Therefore, we recommend the continued use of TGA-approved commercial sunscreens for sun protection. Further studies are required to test water resistance, variation in homemade formulation, shelf life, and protection against skin carcinogenesis in a chronic UVR model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect on gingival inflammation of toothbrushing with sodium bicarbonate toothpaste for 12 weeks compared to brushing with a conventional fluoride toothpaste. METHODS: An ethically-approved, single-centre, controlled, examiner-blind, randomized, two-treatment arm, parallel study in consenting healthy ≥18yr participants with ≥20 teeth diagnosed with localised gingivitis. Approximately 200 eligible participants brushed for 2weeks with a fluoride acclimatization toothpaste before randomization to brushing 2/daily with a sodium bicarbonate (test) or fluoride (control) toothpaste. No pre-prophylaxis was conducted prior to study start. Modified gingival index (MGI), bleeding index (BI) and Turesky plaque index (TPI), were measured at baseline, 3, 6 and 12weeks. Participants completed a diary for compliance monitoring. RESULTS: 190 participants were randomised, 188 completed the study. The test group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in number of bleeding sites from baseline to 12-weeks (p = 0.0032), 6-weeks (p = 0.0031) and 3-weeks (p = 0.0091), and compared to control group from baseline to 12-weeks (p = 0.0013). The test group showed significantly (all p < 0.0001) decreased mean MGI score from baseline to 3-weeks, 6-weeks, and 12-weeks compared to control group; significantly decreased mean overall TPI score from baseline to 3-weeks (p = 0.0012), 6-weeks (p = 0.0058), and 12-weeks (p < 0.0001) compared to control; and significantly reduced mean interproximal TPI scores compared to control group from baseline to 3-weeks (p = 0.0022), 6-weeks (p = 0.0099) and 12-weeks (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Twice daily toothbrushing with a sodium bicarbonate toothpaste significantly improved oral health reducing localised gingivitis compared to brushing with a conventional fluoride toothpaste, measured by BI, MGI and TPI over 12 weeks. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Localised, gingivitis can be resolved or prevented with excellent home-use oral hygiene measures, but this is rarely achieved with mechanical brushing alone. Twice daily toothbrushing with sodium bicarbonate toothpaste demonstrated added value in reducing localised gingivitis and improving oral health compared to brushing with a conventional fluoride toothpaste.

The desire for permanent cosmetic change of eye color has driven the development of various surgical techniques aimed at achieving this transformation, pursuing more enduring solutions. This demand has led to the emergence of three primary surgical approaches: cosmetic iris implants, laser iris depigmentation, and cosmetic keratopigmentation (KTP). Each technique presents distinct advantages, yet also entails specific limitations and potential risks. Cosmetic iris implants, originally designed for congenital or traumatic iris defects, have been repurposed for aesthetic use. However, they come with severe risks, including glaucoma, corneal endothelial cell loss, and even permanent vision impairment. As a result of these complications, they are not approved by major regulatory bodies and are widely considered unsafe. Laser iris depigmentation offers a less invasive approach, using a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser to remove melanin from the anterior iris stroma. While it provides a natural-looking result, it lacks customization and has potential complications like patchy pigmentation, photophobia, and temporary intraocular pressure spikes. Additionally, there is limited long-term data on its safety. Cosmetic KTP, an advanced version of corneal tattooing, has emerged as the safest and most effective option. It involves embedding micronized mineral pigments into the cornea, allowing for precise, customizable, and long-lasting results. Studies show high patient satisfaction and minimal risks when properly performed. Among these techniques, KTP appears to be the best choice owing to its safety and aesthetic flexibility, while cosmetic iris implants should be avoided because of their high risk of complications, and laser iris depigmentation deals with limitations in color selection and long-term reliability. While KTP currently seems the safest option for cosmetic eye color change, this is largely based on limited single-center data and should be confirmed by larger studies in the future.