| Abstrakt: |
Background: As the demand for non-invasive esthetic procedures to maintain a youthful appearance increases, there has been growing interest in the use of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) for the treatment of facial aging. However, there are few studies directly comparing the efficacy of PRP and PPP for facial rejuvenation. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of PRP and PPP for facial rejuvenation. Methods: This single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from January 1, 2022, to July 31, 2022, and included ten participants who completed the follow-up. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 2.5-mL injections of PRP and PPP on different sides of the face in three sessions with 1-month intervals. The outcome was primarily determined by blinded photographic assessments and secondly by scores of the VISIA® system during the follow-up. Results: Both PRP and PPP treatments resulted in significant improvement in the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scales and Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale for periocular Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation wrinkles, with no significant difference between the two groups. However, no improvement was observed in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scales for nasolabial folds in either the PRP- or PPP-treated groups. Furthermore, no severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Both PRP and PPP are effective in treating facial photoaging. PRP exhibited slightly superior efficacy in enhancing overall skin condition, while PPP was slightly more effective in improving shallow wrinkles. This study provides valuable evidence for the use of PRP and PPP in facial rejuvenation procedures. Level of Evidence I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink