anyone?

I have spoken to a german doctor and he said that recell is no good for stretch marks.

they are both good but recell is better.. and i have seen pics of drastic improvement of scars in people that had it done with co2 fractional laser

Recell by itself won't give you any meaningful results imo. The benefit of recell is that it speeds up healing, takes out a lot of the hypo/hyper pigmantation risks of other procedures (co2 lasers/dermabrasion) and supposedly helps with collagen product in general. If you combine recell with a fully ablative procedure (or even fractional) I think you would get much better results than with prp.

I may have been wrong about PRP as it is only a temporary result, but I have seen other people on this website who have had their scars treated with recell and seen improvement. Stretch marks are a form of scarring so surely recell should work fine on them?

i have been done with prp + roller for 3 times but doesn't have good result as i wanted, i dont see any improvement at my skin, i think prp just for aging

here is the study on prp after fractional treatment with ultrasound to enhance prp's penetration...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23057681

the patients were satisfied ...also ''the average width of the widest striae had decreased from 0.75 to 0.27 mm.''

I've had prp a few times and it doesn't seem to do anything really. It gives you a nice glow for a few weeks but then the effect seems to wear off.