Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis
Across cosmetic and aesthetic medicine, evidence consolidates around energy-based skin rejuvenation (Er:YAG and radiofrequency outperforming other modalities), and a prospective study suggests hyaluronic acid rhinofiller may also improve nasal airflow alongside aesthetics. A Europe-wide exposure model for UV filters (e.g., oxybenzone, octinoxate) aligns predictions with monitoring, enabling more robust aquatic safety assessments and informing cosmetic ingredient stewardship.
Summary
Across cosmetic and aesthetic medicine, evidence consolidates around energy-based skin rejuvenation (Er:YAG and radiofrequency outperforming other modalities), and a prospective study suggests hyaluronic acid rhinofiller may also improve nasal airflow alongside aesthetics. A Europe-wide exposure model for UV filters (e.g., oxybenzone, octinoxate) aligns predictions with monitoring, enabling more robust aquatic safety assessments and informing cosmetic ingredient stewardship.
Research Themes
- Energy-based skin rejuvenation and resurfacing
- Functional outcomes of aesthetic injectables
- Environmental safety assessment of cosmetic UV filters
Selected Articles
1. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison between lasers and other therapeutic modalities in skin rejuvenation and resurfacing with a focus on RCTs.
Across six comparative studies (n=497), Er:YAG laser showed the highest proportion of excellent responses, while radiofrequency achieved the highest proportion of good responses; IPL tended to yield fair improvements. Findings suggest Er:YAG, alone or combined with radiofrequency, may provide superior rejuvenation outcomes versus other modalities.
Impact: Synthesizing randomized split-face and comparative trials, this analysis informs device selection and supports Er:YAG ± radiofrequency for skin rejuvenation. It provides comparative performance signals where direct head-to-head evidence is sparse.
Clinical Implications: For facial rejuvenation, clinicians may prioritize Er:YAG for deeper resurfacing goals and consider combining with radiofrequency to enhance outcomes, while counseling that IPL typically yields more modest improvements. Standardizing outcome measures will facilitate individualized modality selection.
Key Findings
- Six studies (n=497) yielded pooled effectiveness proportions: excellent 18%, good 31%, fair 40%, poor 26%, no change 14%.
- Er:YAG laser had the highest proportion of excellent responses (20%).
- Radiofrequency showed the highest proportion of good responses (39%), while IPL more often produced fair responses (39%).
- Split-face and side-by-side randomized designs strengthened within-subject comparisons.
Methodological Strengths
- Inclusion of randomized split-face and side-by-side randomized trials reducing inter-individual variability
- Direct modality-to-modality comparisons across multiple energy-based devices
Limitations
- Small number of trials and heterogeneity in outcome categorization and protocols
- Potential publication bias and limited long-term safety data
Future Directions: Conduct head-to-head RCTs with standardized, validated outcome scales and longer follow-up; evaluate combined Er:YAG+RF protocols and safety across diverse skin types.
2. Spatially referenced environmental exposure model for down-the-drain substance emissions across european Rivers for aquatic safety assessments.
A Europe-wide, spatially resolved model predicts concentrations of down-the-drain chemicals, including cosmetic UV filters (oxybenzone, octinoxate), by incorporating WWTP performance, river routing, and in-stream decay. Predictions aligned with monitoring within a factor of 2–8, supporting prospective aquatic safety assessments against PNECs and tiered risk approaches.
Impact: Provides a validated, spatially explicit exposure tool encompassing UV filters used in personal care, enabling regulators and industry to anticipate environmental concentrations without monitoring every catchment.
Clinical Implications: While not altering bedside care, these data inform sunscreen ingredient stewardship and public health messaging (e.g., reef-safe choices), balancing individual photoprotection with environmental risk. Dermatologists can counsel patients and policymakers using risk assessments grounded in modeled and monitored data.
Key Findings
- Developed an EU-wide, spatially referenced exposure model leveraging WWTP data, river connectivity/routing, and in-stream decay.
- Case studies included two surfactants and two cosmetic UV filters (oxybenzone, octinoxate).
- Modeled 90th percentile concentrations agreed with monitoring within a factor of 2–8, indicating predictive yet conservative performance.
- Model supports prospective safety assessments by comparison to PNECs and aligns with tiered risk frameworks.
Methodological Strengths
- Integrates high-resolution WWTP inventories, hydrological routing, and chemical-specific removal/decay
- External validation against geographically distributed monitoring datasets
Limitations
- Relies on assumed emissions and parameter uncertainties; site-specific usage patterns may vary
- Monitoring data are unevenly distributed; mixture effects and transformation products not fully addressed
Future Directions: Incorporate temporal dynamics (seasonality, extreme flows), refine emissions using market- and behavior-based data, and expand validation for additional cosmetic actives and transformation products.
3. Nasal Airflow Improvement After Rhinofiller: Evaluation Using PROMs and Rhinomanometry.
In 121 patients receiving VYC-25 rhinofiller, NOSE scores improved by 33.7 points and FACE-Q nasal satisfaction increased by 21% over 6 months, while rhinomanometry showed a 24% reduction in inspiratory pressure gradient at 100 Pa. Findings suggest potential functional airflow benefit alongside aesthetic gains in carefully selected patients (Level III).
Impact: Introduces objective airflow data (rhinomanometry) to an aesthetic injectable procedure, bridging function and form and informing patient selection and counseling.
Clinical Implications: In mild deviation with dynamic nasal valve compromise, hyaluronic acid rhinofiller may yield functional airflow improvements but should not be considered a substitute for septorhinoplasty. Incorporating PROMs and rhinomanometry into assessment can guide candidacy and track benefit.
Key Findings
- Prospective evaluation of 121 patients receiving VYC-25 rhinofiller with PROMs at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months.
- NOSE scores decreased by 33.7 ± 9.4 points (p<0.05); FACE-Q nasal satisfaction improved by 21% (±5%).
- Rhinomanometry showed a 24% (±4%) reduction in inspiratory pressure gradient at 100 Pa at 6 months (p<0.05).
- Level of Evidence III; not a substitute for surgical correction.
Methodological Strengths
- Combined validated PROMs (FACE-Q, NOSE) with objective rhinomanometry
- Prospective design with 6-month follow-up and >100 participants
Limitations
- Nonrandomized, single-arm design without a control group
- Device-/product-specific (VYC-25) and limited to selected mild-deviation cases
Future Directions: Randomized controlled or matched comparative studies versus surgical and non-surgical alternatives; longer-term safety and functional durability; imaging-correlated airflow metrics.