Acne.org Products
Derminator--I know that you didn't include it in your options but I've tried all 3 so that's just my opinion. A lot of dermapens drag and can cause unwanted damage. My MYM gave me two small linear scars that took additional time/energy to fix. IMO dermarollers are more painful and more "psychologically frustrating" in that you have to physically exert the pressure to push the needles into your skin. You usually don't get even penetration. And depending on the area being treated, manual needling can take a lot longer than electric. I like the derminator because well 1) I got better results from it 2) it's a faster treatment which means I'll be more likely to use it on schedule and 3) the needle cartridges are pretty cheap so I use a new one every time thus less time cleaning and disenfecting (except your face of course) and less risk of infection. If money is a factor then I'd go for the dermapen. But we are talking about your face here so it's a worthwhile purchase. Plus, a lot of medspas/doctor clinics use the derminator and each session can costs hundreds so you're saving a lot in the long run.
Mechanical pen all the way. Totally worth the initial investment.
11 hours ago, Bollundus said:Okay, I pulled the Trigger and buy a Derminator.
Good for you!
I wanted to get an alternative to the dermaroller mainly for accuracy purposes.
I'm looking into buying one for myself but I'd rather spend 20-40$ so I think my choice will be the dermapen, which is also a lot more compact.
@QuanHenry, which one do you have?
@somethingsomethingagain My friend ... I'd get a normal dermastamp if trying to be cheaper than the derminator. It's just a manual form of the derminator. Dermapen is bad because of microtears of the skin. They use the same cheap motors as vibrators in cellphones. Derminator has a 5 year warranty, and replaceable parts.
[Edited image out]
[Edited link out]
[Edited video out]
On 11/12/2016 at 11:23 PM, beautifulambition said:We have a full discussion of Microneedling and "the derminator" in the FAQ below. Rollers cause tears as Yola4 said, no one uses these anymore, unless it's the body.
I'm always amazed of how people speak of dermapen and dermastamping as the gold standard without having the proper evidence for their efficacy. I have not seen a single randomized clinical trial comparing these techniques to conventional dermarolling with the outcome being a reduced scar burden. I get the theory that the vertical application causes less trauma for the skin. However, trauma is the exact thing that you are going for if you believe that trauma = induction of collagen.
As a result, I think it's a grave mistaske to classify dermarolling as outdated, when the technique has a massive amount of evidence to back up its efficacy compared to newer techniques.
To illustrate my point, here is a review article from 2016 and nowhere does the author state that dermarolling is inferior in reaching the hard point i.e. scar reduction. So dermarolling may still be viable and cheap options for many patients.
[Edited link out]
3 hours ago, Martinms said:I'm always amazed of how people speak of dermapen and dermastamping as the gold standard without having the proper evidence for their efficacy. I have not seen a single randomized clinical trial comparing these techniques to conventional dermarolling with the outcome being a reduced scar burden. I get the theory that the vertical application causes less trauma for the skin. However, trauma is the exact thing that you are going for if you believe that trauma = induction of collagen.As a result, I think it's a grave mistaske to classify dermarolling as outdated, when the technique has a massive amount of evidence to back up its efficacy compared to newer techniques.
To illustrate my point, here is a review article from 2016 and nowhere does the author state that dermarolling is inferior in reaching the hard point i.e. scar reduction. So dermarolling may still be viable and cheap options for many patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976400/
Thank You for your opinion, I respect that, if it works for you great 
That's what this site is about finding solutions to fix acne / scars.
Your study only used dermarollers. That is bias. Are you a dermroller retailer or manufacturer. If so please let yourself be known.
Dermarollers create microtearing. They are still sold and used because they are cheap and can be used on the body and in the hair. I actually don't care what you use, I am impartial, my interest and intent is to help those with acne scars which I myself have, I am a volunteer. I do not sell these products, I own several (including rollers) and have had them used one me.
Please do your research on realself.com many board certified doctors do not use dermarollers anymore for the reasons I stated above.
Secondly your assertions that I am keeping a item from the who are financially poor is not true, dermastamps are just as cheap as rollers. If you have a large area and do not have a machine, a dermaroller might be a better choice for you.
"" There's a fundamental difference with the tearing vs needling, the needle goes in straight whereas the roller sinks in and drags causing tears.
Needles pierce the skin, slide in and out without possibility to move sideways because the other needles anchor the roller head to the skin.
It™s not œcoring out the skin that we™re trying to achieve, but making œchannels. The idea is to cause just the right amount of inflammation while causing the least possible skin trauma.
Micro-tears can rip the edge of pores, permanently enlarging them. The nature of holes made out of collagen and elastin is such that when you make a sideways cut through their boundary, that the sideways stresses by the skin around the hole causes the hole to enlarge. ""
5.0 out of 5 stars
Theoretically rollers should be the same thing as pen and stamps, minus the increased risk of tearing. I like pens because they are easy to use and the price of a new cartridge is generally less than a new roller. I can also adjust the needle length in the settings with my derminator instead of needing a set of different length rollers for different areas of my face.
1 hour ago, beautifulambition said:Thank You for your opinion, I respect that, if it works for you great
It's not an opinion. I am saying that there is an lack of evidence by good clinical trials comparing these techniques. This is a fact unless you show me one.
1 hour ago, beautifulambition said:Your study only used dermarollers. That is bias. Are you a dermroller retailer or manufacturer. If so please let yourself be known.
Umm No. fist of all, I have no disclosures. I am just trying to make this discussion more scientific. Second, it's a review article, so it didn't "use" dermarollers; it merely summarized the use of microneedling and if you look under the section "various instruments and techniques" it lists them all including dermastamp.
1 hour ago, beautifulambition said:Please do your research on realself.com many board certified doctors do not use dermarollers anymore for the reasons I stated above.
My point is, they don't have the hard evidence to back this transition up. The transition is justified by secondary endpoints, which is fine. There are without doubt many advantages of using dermastamps, but the question whether it improves the actual scar burden remains unclear. This is all that I am saying.
1 hour ago, beautifulambition said:Secondly your assertions that I am keeping a item from the who are financially poor is not true, dermastamps are just as cheap as rollers. If you have a large area and do not have a machine, a dermaroller might be a better choice for you.
I did in no way assert this and I did not speak of the price of dermastamps. You are reading way too much into what I am writing. I just said that dermarolling may still be a viable and cheap option.
5 hours ago, Martinms said:I'm always amazed of how people speak of dermapen and dermastamping as the gold standard without having the proper evidence for their efficacy. I have not seen a single randomized clinical trial comparing these techniques to conventional dermarolling with the outcome being a reduced scar burden. I get the theory that the vertical application causes less trauma for the skin. However, trauma is the exact thing that you are going for if you believe that trauma = induction of collagen.As a result, I think it's a grave mistaske to classify dermarolling as outdated, when the technique has a massive amount of evidence to back up its efficacy compared to newer techniques.
To illustrate my point, here is a review article from 2016 and nowhere does the author state that dermarolling is inferior in reaching the hard point i.e. scar reduction. So dermarolling may still be viable and cheap options for many patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976400/
Is microneedling the gold standard? Of course not but still. Trauma is needed in "deep" level epidermal/ derma. Superficial trauma is useless like the dermaroller tearing. Things like subcision, lasers, cross, suctioning, infini and other rf stuff are aimed at this purpose. So yeah the derminator is better than dermaroller. Is it the solution aka magic potion? Nope. Oh and I find the dermastamp a better option even for hair (with minox or other topicals).
30 minutes ago, Rdnhey said:6 hours ago, Martinms said:I'm always amazed of how people speak of dermapen and dermastamping as the gold standard without having the proper evidence for their efficacy. I have not seen a single randomized clinical trial comparing these techniques to conventional dermarolling with the outcome being a reduced scar burden. I get the theory that the vertical application causes less trauma for the skin. However, trauma is the exact thing that you are going for if you believe that trauma = induction of collagen.As a result, I think it's a grave mistaske to classify dermarolling as outdated, when the technique has a massive amount of evidence to back up its efficacy compared to newer techniques.
To illustrate my point, here is a review article from 2016 and nowhere does the author state that dermarolling is inferior in reaching the hard point i.e. scar reduction. So dermarolling may still be viable and cheap options for many patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976400/Is microneedling the gold standard? Of course not but still. Trauma is needed in "deep" level epidermal/ derma. Superficial trauma is useless like the dermaroller tearing. Things like subcision, lasers, cross, suctioning, infini and other rf stuff are aimed at this purpose. So yeah the derminator is better than dermaroller. Is it the solution aka magic potion? Nope. Oh and I find the dermastamp a better option even for hair (with minox or other topicals).
Just a correction, I did not mean microneedling was the gold standard of scar treatments. I was referring to dermastamp as the gold standard for microneedling. Again, there is a lot a talk about tearing, but at the end of the day, no one has proven that dermastamp is "better" if the end goal is an overall reduction in actual scarring.