ok so i had my 2nd treatment about a week ago. my skin texture looks much smoother!!! i see a change, not a huge change but i see improvement!

Thanks Magic Dust for an update about your Fraxel treatment. I'm happy for your results! To hear how the reatment works directly from people who had it done is an invaluable information to me and the main reason I read this board, not to go through pages of bickering about nothing from people who haven't even had the treatment themselves.

Has anyone here had results comparable to any of the 'before and after' photos published by the Fraxel company for acne scarring?

Has anyone here had results comparable to any of the 'before and after' photos published by the Fraxel company for acne scarring?

I've had my 3rd Fraxel 1500 tx today with supposedly "the best" doctor in NYC. I haven't been posting much about my treatments since didn't feel I have anything NEW to add and waited until I do...My treatments have been spaced 2 - 2.5 wks apart, he has a new roller tip, so no blue dye, and yes! the treatments are painful in spite of the numbing cream and a cooling machine. My recovery time seems to be longer than what most people post here and takes about 10 days for my skin to look "normal" again. Sorry for this long intro to answer your question, but thought some background info would be useful. I did see before and after pix for acne scaring published by different sources and was convinced that I will see improvement with Fraxel on my shallow/rather superficial scarring. However, I am still witing to see those results. So far, the only improvement I have noticed is in my pore size, but nothing dramatic. At this point I am not getting discouraged and will continue with my tx, going to have 6 total, but hearing about other people's results with just 1 or 2 treatments makes me wonder if my scars are EVER going to respond to Fraxel...Since age is relevant, I'm 32, on a healthy organic diet/collagen boosting supplemets and I exercise.

Thanks Magic Dust for an update about your Fraxel treatment. I'm happy for your results! To hear how the reatment works directly from people who had it done is an invaluable information to me and the main reason I read this board, not to go through pages of bickering about nothing from people who haven't even had the treatment themselves.

not a problem! 😛

i'm very excited that i'm seeing improvement after my 2nd treatment already! and i still have 3 treatments left so that just adds to even more excitement cos if i'm already seeing improvement then wow i can't wait to see what my skin looks like after 3 more treatments!

and i'm 19 in case anyone was wondering.

Has anyone here had results comparable to any of the 'before and after' photos published by the Fraxel company for acne scarring?

I've had my 3rd Fraxel 1500 tx today with supposedly "the best" doctor in NYC. I haven't been posting much about my treatments since didn't feel I have anything NEW to add and waited until I do...My treatments have been spaced 2 - 2.5 wks apart, he has a new roller tip, so no blue dye, and yes! the treatments are painful in spite of the numbing cream and a cooling machine. My recovery time seems to be longer than what most people post here and takes about 10 days for my skin to look "normal" again. Sorry for this long intro to answer your question, but thought some background info would be useful. I did see before and after pix for acne scaring published by different sources and was convinced that I will see improvement with Fraxel on my shallow/rather superficial scarring. However, I am still witing to see those results. So far, the only improvement I have noticed is in my pore size, but nothing dramatic. At this point I am not getting discouraged and will continue with my tx, going to have 6 total, but hearing about other people's results with just 1 or 2 treatments makes me wonder if my scars are EVER going to respond to Fraxel...Since age is relevant, I'm 32, on a healthy organic diet/collagen boosting supplemets and I exercise.

 

Thanx Mag. It sounds like you have everything going for you 🙂 Please keep us posted. If you have time, could you please list your treatment settings in your signature.

For those people unwilling / unable to post their own photos, it might be helpful to refer to photos similar to your scarring on the Fraxel site or other sites, and then compare your improvement to those shown. This might clarify the verbal and '% improvement' descriptions generally given.

Has anyone here had results comparable to any of the 'before and after' photos published by the Fraxel company for acne scarring?

I've had my 3rd Fraxel 1500 tx today with supposedly "the best" doctor in NYC. I haven't been posting much about my treatments since didn't feel I have anything NEW to add and waited until I do...My treatments have been spaced 2 - 2.5 wks apart, he has a new roller tip, so no blue dye, and yes! the treatments are painful in spite of the numbing cream and a cooling machine. My recovery time seems to be longer than what most people post here and takes about 10 days for my skin to look "normal" again. Sorry for this long intro to answer your question, but thought some background info would be useful. I did see before and after pix for acne scaring published by different sources and was convinced that I will see improvement with Fraxel on my shallow/rather superficial scarring. However, I am still witing to see those results. So far, the only improvement I have noticed is in my pore size, but nothing dramatic. At this point I am not getting discouraged and will continue with my tx, going to have 6 total, but hearing about other people's results with just 1 or 2 treatments makes me wonder if my scars are EVER going to respond to Fraxel...Since age is relevant, I'm 32, on a healthy organic diet/collagen boosting supplemets and I exercise.

 

Thanx Mag. It sounds like you have everything going for you 🙂 Please keep us posted. If you have time, could you please list your treatment settings in your signature.

For those people unwilling / unable to post their own photos, it might be helpful to refer to photos similar to your scarring on the Fraxel site or other sites, and then compare your improvement to those shown. I think this could help the verbal and '% improvement' descriptions generally given.

 

Sorry, but I don't know the settings. I will ask my doc about it during my next appointment.

that news article says the re:pair MJ levels are measured in MAZ (per microablative zone). does this mean they are using a stamping technique? (as opposed to scanning)

i forgot its carbon dioxide too. which ur right punk, means it targets tissue less discriminately than fraxel SR. destroys hemoglobin as well as evaporates water. not sure what the exact chromophore is for co2. have to research that.

A couple things make me nervous about the re:pair - with it being more ablative, I worry about hair loss (eyebrows), and I also don't like the odd white look of the skin of folks who had co2, so I'm inclined to stick with fraxel 2. That being said, I thought I saw something when you get to 70 levels with fraxel 2 you are getting an ablative like effect even though its fractional, because of the high heat spreading. I'm probably not explaining it well, but TCBC you usually can think of everything, so what are your thoughts on it?

i disagree. lasers in the hands of GPs is not good. there is a line that is crossed when a doctor with no dermatological training starts doing these procedures.

in reality it will be his nurse doing the actual procedure, which is just another degree of separation removed.

dermatologists have a lot of extra training to become derms. a GP is not skilled and trained enough. moreover, GPs are usually GPs because they couldn't get a specialized residency when they graduated med school. i.e, they are at the bottom of their class.

i agree that capitalism and innovation go hand in hand. but its obvious that reliant just got mega bucks in venture capital and they are using it to unscrupulously brand and market their laser. perhaps all the copycat technology is whats really driving them to do it, but I'm sure their are internal motivations at reliant as well.

I disagree on fraxel and GPs. My dermatological team, despite being comprised of some of the best derms in Boston, adds pretty much nothing over what a GP could offer. The fact that these derms are already letting their nurses and PAs do these procedures is more than enough of a testament that GPs could do it as well (whether or not you believe that GPs really are the bottom of the barrel of doctors).

Being an investment professional at a venture capital firm (who has worked with Three Arch, one of the big investors in Reliant), I am quite familiar with what venture capital firms fund, and it certainly is not branding and marketing. Anyone who pitches that at my firm would be kicked out the door and laughed at.

What they are actually funding is new products (like the fractional CO2). Plus, does it really cost $11M to rename your product(s) and to put up a couple press releases on your website?

 

I have a nurse do my fraxels, so I don't think you need a doctor but I definitely think you need someone who specializes in it (does it all the time), has ongoing training and practice. When I did my consults with 3 different offices, they all admitted there was a lot of trial and error, and non responding due to not understading the different components for different types of problems, acne, wrinkles, deep scars, melasma, etc and that it took several months to get the hang of it. My nurse even offered free treatments to some of the early patients she had because she saw what a huge difference it made after she understood the machine better and wanted them to get better results.

fraxelface,

that's actually a very good point. if re:pair ablates 1.6 mm then, it indiscriminately ablates everything in its path including hair follicles, sweat glands, oil glands, etc.

i suppose a couple factors are. 1. hair follicles tend to sit slanted in the skin so the MAZ would only take out portions of a follicle. and supposedly (from what i've read on keratin.com) the follicle can regenerate unless it is severely damaged.

2. i've read that there are two areas for stem cells in a follicle. the hair bulb and the hair bulge. the bulge is within the 1.6 mm range since it is in the middle of the hair follicle. the bulb is at the root which for course hair like eyebrows is supposedly 2-4mm. dont know how accurate those numbers or facts are.

i wouldnt want to risk re:pair on a critical area like your eyebrow unless they have clinical proof it wont do damage. do you have scars on your eyebrow? (i actually do). or are you just scared the operator might roll over the wrong area since there's no blue dye.

i guess a third factor could be what thermal effect it actually has. since the chromophore isnt water it will have some heat effect on the hair shaft and follicle. (even if MAZ doesn't reach it in depth, the bulk heat may) im certain its not targeting melanin though like laser hair removal, but the heat still could be enough to have the same effect. i really don't know.

i think a worst case scenerio might be that some hairs are destroyed/disabled so that they grow very patchy, which would look weirder than having no eyebrows. the patchy effect is common in laser hair removal when they go over a really dense area like beard, so i'd expect the same for eyebrows (assuming there is an effect at all).

its interesting to note that losing sweat, oil glands, nerve cells, etc. isn't a problem if you are also actually losing the skin they are serving (MAZ). but that's not true for hair like eyebrows, beard hair (and maybe forearm hair in some). because hair is an outgrowth which is patterned and mosaic. in relatively thick short-haired areas i really wonder what it would look like to have that pattern altered . . .

sometimes as well when an area is injured (through surgery or ablation) the hair will stop growing for sometimes several years (one of the reasons "permanent" laser hair removal is controversial). for instance i had a mole on my arm removed and it was several years before the hair regrew around it.

i guess someone has to do it and report on here. hopefully its in an inconspicuous area.

fraxelface,

that's actually a very good point. if re:pair ablates 1.6 mm then, it indiscriminately ablates everything in its path including hair follicles, sweat glands, oil glands, etc.

i suppose a couple factors are. 1. hair follicles tend to sit slanted in the skin so the MAZ would only take out portions of a follicle. and supposedly (from what i've read on keratin.com) the follicle can regenerate unless it is severely damaged.

2. i've read that there are two areas for stem cells in a follicle. the hair bulb and the hair bulge. the bulge is within the 1.6 mm range since it is in the middle of the hair follicle. the bulb is at the root which for course hair like eyebrows is supposedly 2-4mm. dont know how accurate those numbers or facts are.

i wouldnt want to risk re:pair on a critical area like your eyebrow unless they have clinical proof it wont do damage. do you have scars on your eyebrow? (i actually do). or are you just scared the operator might roll over the wrong area since there's no blue dye.

i guess a third factor could be what thermal effect it actually has. since the chromophore isnt water it will have some heat effect on the hair shaft and follicle. (even if MAZ doesn't reach it in depth, the bulk heat may) im certain its not targeting melanin though like laser hair removal, but the heat still could be enough to have the same effect. i really don't know.

i think a worst case scenerio might be that some hairs are destroyed/disabled so that they grow very patchy, which would look weirder than having no eyebrows. the patchy effect is common in laser hair removal when they go over a really dense area like beard, so i'd expect the same for eyebrows (assuming there is an effect at all).

its interesting to note that losing sweat, oil glands, nerve cells, etc. isn't a problem if you are also actually losing the skin they are serving (MAZ). but that's not true for hair like eyebrows, beard hair (and maybe forearm hair in some). because hair is an outgrowth which is patterned and mosaic. in relatively thick short-haired areas i really wonder what it would look like to have that pattern altered . . .

sometimes as well when an area is injured (through surgery or ablation) the hair will stop growing for sometimes several years (one of the reasons "permanent" laser hair removal is controversial). for instance i had a mole on my arm removed and it was several years before the hair regrew around it.

i guess someone has to do it and report on here. hopefully its in an inconspicuous area.

I had IPL/RF when it first came out. The nurse didn't go over my eyebrows but came near it, but the pulse spreads beyond the target area and I had some eyebrow loss. They soon realized this machine could be used for hair removal, because in the pulse targeting dark areas, the same effect worked on dark hair follicles. So my fear would be either accidently rolling over it, or if the heated area got hot enough to spread enough heat to the eyebrow area - or hairline. Hope that makes sense. By the way, the IPL/RF didn't help anything otherwise.

fraxelface,

 

that's actually a very good point. if re:pair ablates 1.6 mm then, it indiscriminately ablates everything in its path including hair follicles, sweat glands, oil glands, etc.

 

i suppose a couple factors are. 1. hair follicles tend to sit slanted in the skin so the MAZ would only take out portions of a follicle. and supposedly (from what i've read on keratin.com) the follicle can regenerate unless it is severely damaged.

 

2. i've read that there are two areas for stem cells in a follicle. the hair bulb and the hair bulge. the bulge is within the 1.6 mm range since it is in the middle of the hair follicle. the bulb is at the root which for course hair like eyebrows is supposedly 2-4mm. dont know how accurate those numbers or facts are.

 

i wouldnt want to risk re:pair on a critical area like your eyebrow unless they have clinical proof it wont do damage. do you have scars on your eyebrow? (i actually do). or are you just scared the operator might roll over the wrong area since there's no blue dye.

 

i guess a third factor could be what thermal effect it actually has. since the chromophore isnt water it will have some heat effect on the hair shaft and follicle. (even if MAZ doesn't reach it in depth, the bulk heat may) im certain its not targeting melanin though like laser hair removal, but the heat still could be enough to have the same effect. i really don't know.

 

i think a worst case scenerio might be that some hairs are destroyed/disabled so that they grow very patchy, which would look weirder than having no eyebrows. the patchy effect is common in laser hair removal when they go over a really dense area like beard, so i'd expect the same for eyebrows (assuming there is an effect at all).

 

its interesting to note that losing sweat, oil glands, nerve cells, etc. isn't a problem if you are also actually losing the skin they are serving (MAZ). but that's not true for hair like eyebrows, beard hair (and maybe forearm hair in some). because hair is an outgrowth which is patterned and mosaic. in relatively thick short-haired areas i really wonder what it would look like to have that pattern altered . . .

 

sometimes as well when an area is injured (through surgery or ablation) the hair will stop growing for sometimes several years (one of the reasons "permanent" laser hair removal is controversial). for instance i had a mole on my arm removed and it was several years before the hair regrew around it.

 

i guess someone has to do it and report on here. hopefully its in an inconspicuous area.

I had IPL/RF when it first came out. The nurse didn't go over my eyebrows but came near it, but the pulse spreads beyond the target area and I had some eyebrow loss. They soon realized this machine could be used for hair removal, because in the pulse targeting dark areas, the same effect worked on dark hair follicles. So my fear would be either accidently rolling over it, or if the heated area got hot enough to spread enough heat to the eyebrow area - or hairline. Hope that makes sense. By the way, the IPL/RF didn't help anything otherwise.

Has anyone here had results comparable to any of the 'before and after' photos published by the Fraxel company for acne scarring?

I've had my 3rd Fraxel 1500 tx today with supposedly "the best" doctor in NYC. I haven't been posting much about my treatments since didn't feel I have anything NEW to add and waited until I do...My treatments have been spaced 2 - 2.5 wks apart, he has a new roller tip, so no blue dye, and yes! the treatments are painful in spite of the numbing cream and a cooling machine. My recovery time seems to be longer than what most people post here and takes about 10 days for my skin to look "normal" again. Sorry for this long intro to answer your question, but thought some background info would be useful. I did see before and after pix for acne scaring published by different sources and was convinced that I will see improvement with Fraxel on my shallow/rather superficial scarring. However, I am still witing to see those results. So far, the only improvement I have noticed is in my pore size, but nothing dramatic. At this point I am not getting discouraged and will continue with my tx, going to have 6 total, but hearing about other people's results with just 1 or 2 treatments makes me wonder if my scars are EVER going to respond to Fraxel...Since age is relevant, I'm 32, on a healthy organic diet/collagen boosting supplemets and I exercise.

 

which doctor- dr rokhsar? my 1st treatment with him is next week.

fraxelface,

that's actually a very good point. if re:pair ablates 1.6 mm then, it indiscriminately ablates everything in its path including hair follicles, sweat glands, oil glands, etc.

i suppose a couple factors are. 1. hair follicles tend to sit slanted in the skin so the MAZ would only take out portions of a follicle. and supposedly (from what i've read on keratin.com) the follicle can regenerate unless it is severely damaged.

2. i've read that there are two areas for stem cells in a follicle. the hair bulb and the hair bulge. the bulge is within the 1.6 mm range since it is in the middle of the hair follicle. the bulb is at the root which for course hair like eyebrows is supposedly 2-4mm. dont know how accurate those numbers or facts are.

i wouldnt want to risk re:pair on a critical area like your eyebrow unless they have clinical proof it wont do damage. do you have scars on your eyebrow? (i actually do). or are you just scared the operator might roll over the wrong area since there's no blue dye.

i guess a third factor could be what thermal effect it actually has. since the chromophore isnt water it will have some heat effect on the hair shaft and follicle. (even if MAZ doesn't reach it in depth, the bulk heat may) im certain its not targeting melanin though like laser hair removal, but the heat still could be enough to have the same effect. i really don't know.

i think a worst case scenerio might be that some hairs are destroyed/disabled so that they grow very patchy, which would look weirder than having no eyebrows. the patchy effect is common in laser hair removal when they go over a really dense area like beard, so i'd expect the same for eyebrows (assuming there is an effect at all).

its interesting to note that losing sweat, oil glands, nerve cells, etc. isn't a problem if you are also actually losing the skin they are serving (MAZ). but that's not true for hair like eyebrows, beard hair (and maybe forearm hair in some). because hair is an outgrowth which is patterned and mosaic. in relatively thick short-haired areas i really wonder what it would look like to have that pattern altered . . .

sometimes as well when an area is injured (through surgery or ablation) the hair will stop growing for sometimes several years (one of the reasons "permanent" laser hair removal is controversial). for instance i had a mole on my arm removed and it was several years before the hair regrew around it.

i guess someone has to do it and report on here. hopefully its in an inconspicuous area.

I had IPL/RF when it first came out. The nurse didn't go over my eyebrows but came near it, but the pulse spreads beyond the target area and I had some eyebrow loss. They soon realized this machine could be used for hair removal, because in the pulse targeting dark areas, the same effect worked on dark hair follicles. So my fear would be either accidently rolling over it, or if the heated area got hot enough to spread enough heat to the eyebrow area - or hairline. Hope that makes sense. By the way, the IPL/RF didn't help anything otherwise.

 

[/b]

 

i had IPL/RF on my face for folliculitis (on laser hair removal machine- the aurora). it just made things much worse and i had to do accutane.

theycanbecured:

I was interested in what you said about CO2 lasers that when the epithethial tissue grows back, it looks unnatural. I don't know much about these types of lasers, and have never met anyone who has had it. Does the skin then retain this unnatural look, or is it temporary? I wonder, do you think, that this is a possible complication with Fraxel where higher Joules are being used, and it becomes essentially somewhat ablative?? On another message board, I noticed a post by someone who said, basically, that lasers ruin skin, and "take away its natural shine" or something to that effect. Has anyone noticed that? I don't think that I would want to trade a natural radiant look (albeit with some scars) for a unscarred dull unnatural look, which I think would actually make you look older. Just wondering what your opinion is on this.

Also, I think that you asked Nattie a question about where the sebaceous hyperplasia occurred, and from my understanding it was primarily on her forehead, where she only used 20mJ, as opposed to the rest of her face where 40 was used.

I also was interested in what you said about the striae, and I think you made an excellent observatation, since this is a problem at the deeper dermal level. I hope you are right about that. I had twins and that left me with some serious stretch marks!!

You always make a lot of well thought out points, and I appreciate your input!

Ok. I think I'm gonna wait till the new Fraxel Re:pair comes out to have my surgery. It is suppose to be out this coming Fall. From what I've gathered, there are many docs that think that Erbium (fraxel re:store or fraxel 1 or 2) is inferior to Co2 based lasers. I was able to find the following study on the new Fraxel 3 laser that totally ablates (destroys) the dermal tissue with Co2. In the skin biospy, where the dermal tissue was destroyed, the entire zone was replaced with complete new collagen within three months.

 

https://www.imagestore.md/aslms/posters/241/

Thanks for the link, rpunkboy! I'd just like to comment on a couple of things about the study. (BTW this comment isn't really directed to you, I'm just quoting to show what I'm referring to.)

 

I've been researching Fraxel for my acne scars, and being both a cautious person and a poor one(!), I gotta have decent proof before I go for treatment. Sorry if I bring anyone down, but for the cost of treatment I want more reassurance it will work!

 

One thing I notice is that in this study, the new laser is used not for scarring but for skin tightening. So far, from posts I've read, it seems like people are getting better results with the Fraxel series for superficial scarring & wrinkling, melasma and rosacea than for deeper scarring, and this study doesn't suggest anything different for the new laser. (Yet.)

 

The study also makes no mention of whether the laser was used on anyone's FACE. The pictures are of someone's arm. I would be extremely cautious about making any judgment at all about its effectiveness (and possible side effects) until I saw the results of facial testing. (Nope, I won't be first in line for that either...)

 

I don't see a date on the study so I'm assuming it's very recent. It's interesting that the earlier Fraxel models were non-ablative (non-tissue destroying), which was touted as one of their major advantages...yet this newer model returns to an ablative approach using C02. Maybe (hopefully) it will turn out that a combination of CO2 and Fraxel laser technology works best. But from all the posts I've read, it seems to me that the Fraxel line hasn't YET reached the point where those of us with deeper scarring would be satisfied.

 

Just something to think about, for what it's worth.

 

well, the unnatural look is something that i can't describe in "clinical" or "medical" terms. most of the time the skin looks weirdly thin and smooth (compared to before) but unnatural. sometimes it turns crepe paper texture too.

i don't know how to describe it very well. but im pretty sure i know why that happens. the traditional CO2 just burns off tissue, which "regrows" but not at the deepest dermal levels. just on the surface. there is no plumping effect. there is no collagen shrinkage and re-ordering, no new collagen bundles, little skin shrinkage overall, no increase in elastin and elasticity, etc. the entire epidermis is lost and the dermis becomes the external skin.

i say "regrows" because its more like a layer of top skin is taken off, and the layer under it is forced to become the new outer skin. kind of like a burn victim. not that the skin looks that hideous. the CO2 ablation is a very controlled burn.

this is something patients and doctors put up with, because for about 20-30 there wasn't much else that could get rid of deep wrinkles or scars. its interesting to read clinical papers and doctors comments on traditional CO2 laser resurfacing. they have to be doctoral in their use of words, but it always obvious that while the wrinkles are gone, the overall results are less than desirable. a doctor would never use a word like "weird" or "skeleton-like" but thats what they probably think in their heads.

im not sure why the look .may be dull or flat. what happens though is the skin takes on that cigarette paper look and sometimes can even be shiny. its similar to the effect you see on patients with sever skin thinning from overuse of topical corticosteroids.

but you have to understand that the reason for all that is not due to the CO2, its that the laser is completely ablative (burns off entire layer of skin). there are erbium lasers that are ablative (though they are usually used for micropeels like the sciton laser).

so the re:pair being a CO2 laser doesnt make it bad just by virtue of being CO2 powered. its still FDDA (did i get it right? fractional deep dermal ablation? LOL). basically, it works just like the first fraxel. one laser pulse come out of the wand, pass through the tip and is scattered into several much tinier pulses. instead of being microthermal zones (MTZs) like on the traditional fraxel, they call them macroablative zones (MAZs).

the histological difference is the key:

on the traditional CO2 laser all the cells are burned off, to say a depth of 1 mm. your face would be an open crusty wound all over. there is little to no deep dermal healing. the cells exposed at the top of the burn die and become the new stratum corneum, and so on. (healing by "delayed primary intention"? not sure what you call it really)

on the traditional fraxel laser the "MTZ" is a little column of tissue that gets heated to the point of denaturing. the cells are still there, but the water in them is evaporated and so the cells shrivel and die. the microwound is the width of a piece of paper (100 microns) and get replaced almost immediately with new cells from around itself. (healing by "regeneration"). since your body is regenerating, the collagen and elastin that was there will get replaced with new collagen and elastin. also some of the collagen and elastin that remains, gets shrunken and "re-ordered".

the same thing sort of happens on the fraxel re:pair. except the key difference is the microwound. with the re:pair the microwound is slightly bigger and the tissue is actually completely burned, evaporated, ablated --whatever you want to call it. so instead that wound doesn't completely regenerate. some tissue is lost. (hopefully bad tissue)

the epidermis actually slides into the edges of the MAZ in a process called invagination (giggle). during invagination the microwound edges "approximate" (come together like when you get stiches for a bad cut). then regeneration takes place. i guess maybe this could be called "delayed regeneration"? lol is just coined a new phrase you heard it here first!

so the end process of the re:pair is that you lose some skin (20-30 percent skin tightening the study said) and some skin is regenerated (not sure how much). but the result looks natural because it happened fractionally.

But, you don't think that you would get any of these effects with the Fraxel 1500, do you? If that was the case, I think that I would just stick with topical products that stimulate the fibroblasts e.g topical vitamin C, zinc, retinoids, AHAs, Cu.

You know, I think I am finally going to take that histology class I have been meaning to take for years!!

well, the unnatural look is something that i can't describe in "clinical" or "medical" terms. most of the time the skin looks weirdly thin and smooth (compared to before) but unnatural. sometimes it turns crepe paper texture too.

 

i don't know how to describe it very well. but im pretty sure i know why that happens. the traditional CO2 just burns off tissue, which "regrows" but not at the deepest dermal levels. just on the surface. there is no plumping effect. there is no collagen shrinkage and re-ordering, no new collagen bundles, little skin shrinkage overall, no increase in elastin and elasticity, etc. the entire epidermis is lost and the dermis becomes the external skin.

 

i say "regrows" because its more like a layer of top skin is taken off, and the layer under it is forced to become the new outer skin. kind of like a burn victim. not that the skin looks that hideous. the CO2 ablation is a very controlled burn.

 

this is something patients and doctors put up with, because for about 20-30 there wasn't much else that could get rid of deep wrinkles or scars. its interesting to read clinical papers and doctors comments on traditional CO2 laser resurfacing. they have to be doctoral in their use of words, but it always obvious that while the wrinkles are gone, the overall results are less than desirable. a doctor would never use a word like "weird" or "skeleton-like" but thats what they probably think in their heads.

 

im not sure why the look .may be dull or flat. what happens though is the skin takes on that cigarette paper look and sometimes can even be shiny. its similar to the effect you see on patients with sever skin thinning from overuse of topical corticosteroids.

 

but you have to understand that the reason for all that is not due to the CO2, its that the laser is completely ablative (burns off entire layer of skin). there are erbium lasers that are ablative (though they are usually used for micropeels like the sciton laser).

 

so the re:pair being a CO2 laser doesnt make it bad just by virtue of being CO2 powered. its still FDDA (did i get it right? fractional deep dermal ablation? LOL). basically, it works just like the first fraxel. one laser pulse come out of the wand, pass through the tip and is scattered into several much tinier pulses. instead of being microthermal zones (MTZs) like on the traditional fraxel, they call them macroablative zones (MAZs).

 

the histological difference is the key:

 

on the traditional CO2 laser all the cells are burned off, to say a depth of 1 mm. your face would be an open crusty wound all over. there is little to no deep dermal healing. the cells exposed at the top of the burn die and become the new stratum corneum, and so on. (healing by "delayed primary intention"? not sure what you call it really)

 

on the traditional fraxel laser the "MTZ" is a little column of tissue that gets heated to the point of denaturing. the cells are still there, but the water in them is evaporated and so the cells shrivel and die. the microwound is the width of a piece of paper (100 microns) and get replaced almost immediately with new cells from around itself. (healing by "regeneration").

well if your search around in google images there are some great ex vivo cross sections of fraxeled skin. until you look at them several times its impossible to imagine what im talking about.

i don't want to mislead you or make any assumptions about your specific treatment. but from the way fraxel re:fine and re:store work, there is a predictable clinical response of

1. improved skin tone,

2. color,

3. texture,

4. equalizing of pigmentation (paradoxical effect! i find that amazing . . .),

5. softening of scars and imperfections, wrinkles

6. mild skin tightening (2 percent),

7. reduction/elimination of rosacea/telangiectasia (broken blood vessels).

8. i guess you can throw in pore size for some (i wonder whether this occurs because sebaceous glands are destroyed? = less oil)

this corresponds to a predictable histological response of new collagen and elastin formation.

so NO, i don't think you'd have any of "cigarette paper" and/or "crepe paper" problems that happens with CO2 or dermabrasion.

you may likely have some reaction though especially if you have acne prone skin in the last few years. milia, acne, brown freckles, idiosyncratic response, etc. certainly you will be red and swollen up to a week. and you will have to have a careful regimen that includes high SPF and little to no topicals besides a good moisturizer. some people use retinoids and such in between treatments but i think that's a bad idea. i wouldnt even use an AHA moisturizer.

if you want to use topicals, the only thing that works is retin-a (tazorac). but you have to use it for a very long time for only a mild improvement. personally i'd rather be red for a weekend once a month, than every day for a year. and still the improvement will not be as good as with a fractional laser. (besides superficial peeling, retinoids stimulate new collagen but don't help in ablating/re-ordering old fibers or scar tissue--from what i've read).

vitamin C is always a good idea. its a catalyst and collagen can't be formed without it. adequate protein intake is just as important. i know burn victims need A LOT more protein and to a much milder extent the same is true for fraxel patients. i wouldn't think that would be a problem unless you are a vegetarian. in which case you may want to eat red meat during treatment (red meat is also one of the best sources for b complex vitamins) or at the very least take a dairy based protein supplement like pure whey protein powder. (read more about complementary proteins/amino acids/health and healing, its fascinating stuff--vegetarians frequently aren't getting a full complement of protein and vitamins).

if anyone is interested there is a great vitamin and protein shake i have every morning:

blend:

-one or two broken up bananas

-0.5 to one cup soy milk (plain and unsweetened)

-one cup frozen blueberry

-one cup frozen strawberry (pineapple can be substituted for a nice change)

-two-three scoops of trader joes pure whey protein powder

(enter the ingredients in this order to avoid clogging blender)

there are tons of vitamins and antioxidants in the fruit plus lots added to the powder. that plus swallowing one capsule of vitamin C supplement and a multi-vitamin are more than enough to make sure your body can produce collagen optimally. the shake alone has 50-75 percent of normal daily protein intake, too.

i guess you should also remember that the fraxel only turns back the clock, doesn't stop it. so the only "permanent" changes will be for scars, stria, etc. you'll still pick up imperfections that we all get along the road of life and you're new skin will still age at the same rate it always does unless you make lifestyle changes in regards to sun exposure, smoking, diet, exercise, etc. even then you'd probably only slow down the actual aging process a little (and possibly annoy the hubby to death with the sound of a blender every morning)

TCBC. A question that I have is that if it takes up to 3 months for the MAZ to completely heal, then I'm assuming the treatments would need to be months apart, assuming that more than one treatment would be safe in the first place.

Has anyone posted before and after photos. I know I have to do it soon, but my treatments were not with Fraxel and my Plastic sugeon said no more lasers and to see him in about 6months to 1 year because of what he believe's there could be skin damage due to the overuse of the Polaris laser at its highest settings.

He is unsure though. I have Hyperpigmentation around the lower part of my forhead all the way down and around my Cheeks.

I told him I never ever did any lasers to the side of my temples nor my forhead and yet there is a slight redish or slight green/brown pigmentation there.

I have a beard so I never did any treatments to that area of my face and he wanted to bet me if I shaved it, it would be all white compared to the rest of my face.

I am not sure if he is referring to the Hyperpigmentation as Damage or exactly what? He demanded to know of what happened exactly and All I could say is it might have been from the Microdermabrasions I performed possibly? He said he doughted it.

So the only other thing I can think of is, it could either be from that SKIN ETERNALS HA Serum or my own home brew of Green tea with Blueberry in it. Maybe that is staining my skin. If it stains teeth then can I assume it will stain my skin?

I leave my face wet about 80% of the day with VItamin E and rarely is it dry. I am wondering if my Oil glands were damamged from the laser because it my face looks like an Orange peel and is Dry looking so if I do not leave it wet all the time with Vitamin E it looks bad or worste without it being wet. Maybe it because my skin is so used to being wet all the time over the years my Oil glands may bot be producing as much?

Anyhow I have a long story and a lot of Pics to POST over my experience from Teen years till now 40's.

I never started any treatments until the age of 45. My face somewhat got damaged according to my father in my teen years from the sun. It got burned a few times and he said it damaged my skin back then so who knows?

I am not sure why people say did you see his face wherever I go. My GIrlfriend said its because my skin looks like its Plastic like on a Manikin. Sorry if that is not how you spell that word. Man if my skin looked that good then why would people say did you see his face? It is somewhat wet looking and shiny all the time but I want it to look that way. I think she is wrong. Its something else. I am striking because of my dark hair and dark beard so maybe I shine out in the crowd. I really don't care because I think I am a good looking guy no matter what they say and I have a beautifull girlfriend to boot. To boot is canadian slur.

I should do be exactly as my girlfirend sais, and I should not care what anyone sais and look at them as being Envious of me. No one pays that much attention to a person no matter how bad a face may look.

I have been doing alot of research on fraxel laser, and have seen some before/after photos from dr's offices. To my dissappointment, it seems that this procedure is mostly hype as to the effectiveness in treating acne scars. The pictures posted up in the fraxel.com website seem to be highly misleading as i suspect they are only the few instances where the most signficant improvement in patient's outcome has been shown. call it biased advertisement. I recommend going to your local dr.'s office where they do fraxel treatments and asking to see some photos. I have yet to see any substantial improvements from the photos i've seen in my dr's office. Just a forethought, the pictures you see on reliant technology's fraxel laser can be misleading--showing only the few instances of patients who's outcome were positive compared to the numerous dissappointments other patients who've had it done showed.

I have been doing alot of research on fraxel laser, and have seen some before/after photos from dr's offices. To my dissappointment, it seems that this procedure is mostly hype as to the effectiveness in treating acne scars. The pictures posted up in the fraxel.com website seem to be highly misleading as i suspect they are only the few instances where the most signficant improvement in patient's outcome has been shown. call it biased advertisement. I recommend going to your local dr.'s office where they do fraxel treatments and asking to see some photos. I have yet to see any substantial improvements from the photos i've seen in my dr's office. Just a forethought, the pictures you see on reliant technology's fraxel laser can be misleading--showing only the few instances of patients who's outcome were positive compared to the numerous dissappointments other patients who've had it done showed.

 

Exactly. Even this person said she had two Dermabrasions and Two Laser resurfacing's done by renoun Dr's and she ended up with a worste condition and the only thing that is making her look better in her case is the Silicone Droplet 4th photo from the bottom which I think was already posted here or somewhere else not sure.

http://www.lamfacialplastics.com/index.php...52&Itemid=9

My point is maybe some light Micro's and or checmical Peels and only light and maybe some Liquid Augmentation of some sort will help a bit until some new technology comes out.

In My opinion is will most likely Medical Nanotechnology. TIny little Robots with either chemicals or some sort of Biological ingrediant to precisely repair damamged skin.

THis is not Scinece Fiction and this technology is about 10 years away.

THat is our hope. Lasers are good for some thing but to remove Scarring, in my opinion is is only temporary and seems to just cause further scarring as a lot of people as myself have seen after a couple of years off the laser.

have you noticed people like FLoridaguy etc who have done fraxel have also had to plump up with some time of liquid augmentation as in his case Sculptra. I have done sculptra and have to admit that is what has saved my sanity. Without that filler I would be in a Nut House. It strached my skin outward making my apprearence less scar looking.

Update for you all.

This morning i was feeling daring (actually hung over) i brought a big mirror outside with me to look at my skin. I have had three fraxel treatments so far. I for once in a long time was pleased with my skin. I really see an improvement. Now it's not perfect, but its so much better then it was before.

I was contemplating if i was seeing results or just having a good skin day. I'm definately going for the 4th and 5th treatment.

I have been doing alot of research on fraxel laser, and have seen some before/after photos from dr's offices. To my dissappointment, it seems that this procedure is mostly hype as to the effectiveness in treating acne scars. The pictures posted up in the fraxel.com website seem to be highly misleading as i suspect they are only the few instances where the most signficant improvement in patient's outcome has been shown. call it biased advertisement. I recommend going to your local dr.'s office where they do fraxel treatments and asking to see some photos. I have yet to see any substantial improvements from the photos i've seen in my dr's office. Just a forethought, the pictures you see on reliant technology's fraxel laser can be misleading--showing only the few instances of patients who's outcome were positive compared to the numerous dissappointments other patients who've had it done showed.

 

Exactly. Even this person said she had two Dermabrasions and Two Laser resurfacing's done by renoun Dr's and she ended up with a worste condition and the only thing that is making her look better in her case is the Silicone Droplet 4th photo from the bottom which I think was already posted here or somewhere else not sure.

http://www.lamfacialplastics.com/index.php...52&Itemid=9

My point is maybe some light Micro's and or checmical Peels and only light and maybe some Liquid Augmentation of some sort will help a bit until some new technology comes out.

In My opinion is will most likely Medical Nanotechnology. TIny little Robots with either chemicals or some sort of Biological ingrediant to precisely repair damamged skin.

THis is not Scinece Fiction and this technology is about 10 years away.

THat is our hope. Lasers are good for some thing but to remove Scarring, in my opinion is is only temporary and seems to just cause further scarring as a lot of people as myself have seen after a couple of years off the laser.

have you noticed people like FLoridaguy etc who have done fraxel have also had to plump up with some time of liquid augmentation as in his case Sculptra. I have done sculptra and have to admit that is what has saved my sanity. Without that filler I would be in a Nut House. It strached my skin outward making my apprearence less scar looking.

 

i kind of responded to the ideas in this statement several pages ago, but was attacked.

basically i was pointing out that fraxel was not invented for acne scars. it was a nice side application. the money is in treating the millions of baby boomers with money to spend on sun spots and wrinkles, not the odd acne scar patient.

that being said, fraxel does soften scars. but it does NOT eliminate them. its been said time and again. if you have any kind of significant scarring, fraxel may help but you will still have scars and need filler or something.

its possible that over many many treatments fraxel can eliminate deep scars.? but no one has actually done that. its time and money consuming. (that is it would take years and tens of thousands of dollars.)

the whole beauty of fraxel is that it is FRACTIONAL. so you can't expect fantastic and immediate results. its made to NOT work like that. the trade off is that there is little downtime or risk, and each treatment is cumulative. so you see a slow and somewhat steady improvement as your face skin, literally, rejuvenates itself.

even if nano technology where to become available it would still have to work in the way fraxel does. because your body just does not work like a car mechanic does when it comes to repairing itself. you can speed and aid the process of healing with chemicals, sleep, oxygen, etc. but its still not an immediate process. it takes days to weeks to heal a cut. a broken bone takes weeks to months. repair is happening at the cellular level.

as for nano technology robots i hope you're right. but even if it becomes practical, the cosmetic use will be SUPER expensive and not covered by insurance. its more likely to be used for micro heart surgery or something. the best thing is to do, as you said, and be comfortable with yourself and find someone who loves you and doesn't care.

i don't have much advice on your weird coloring. but drinking tea wont do it, unless you put the tea bags on your face. or maybe if you drink inhuman crazy amounts of it. but then the coloring would be all over your body not just face.

as for the orange peel (crepe paper skin). isn't the polaris the plasma PSR thing? i took one look at it and said NO THANKS! It peels the skin like a CO2 laser (actually i think it is a co2 laser). crepe paper skin texture is a common side effect. im sorry this happened to you.

but i wouldnt be questioning fraxel when you had a completely different laser. PSR is not even fractional.

Update for you all.

This morning i was feeling daring (actually hung over) i brought a big mirror outside with me to look at my skin. I have had three fraxel treatments so far. I for once in a long time was pleased with my skin. I really see an improvement. Now it's not perfect, but its so much better then it was before.

I was contemplating if i was seeing results or just having a good skin day. I'm definately going for the 4th and 5th treatment.

wow congrats! looking in a mirror outside? that is a victory in itself. i haven't looked in a mirror in direct indoor light in almost a year.