Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Tom_Mason

Scarless Healing

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, nikki_gargin said:

Scars don’t have pores...so why should scarless healing not have pores? And same for the wrinkles....why does the presence of wrinkles mean non scarless healing? Don’t get your point?

some scars which are not that deep have pores ...i repeat it and i can prove it. .. scars which are not that deep pores ( example some of my acne scar have pores i have seen it through a magnifying glass it had some pores ..and one of my hypertrophic scars also have pores and some hair also grows from it)

pores and hair are completely absent only in true fibrotic scars like burn scars ...accidental scars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Anish004 said:

some scars which are not that deep have pores ...i repeat it and i can prove it. .. scars which are not that deep pores ( example some of my acne scar have pores i have seen it through a magnifying glass it had some pores ..and one of my hypertrophic scars also have pores and some hair also grows from it)

pores and hair are completely absent only in true fibrotic scars like burn scars ...accidental scars

That doesn't make any sense , how can fibrous tissue ( which scarring essentially is ) have pores ? , having pores is an indicator of having healthy functioning skin , i have rough skin texture from years of pimples ( essentially scarring ) that might seem similar to pores ... maybe you're confused , am not trying to say you're wrong , but scars that have pores just doesn't sound right to me.   

Edited by Scarcure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scarcure said:

That doesn't make any sense , how can fibrous tissue ( which scarring essentially is ) have pores ? , having pores is an indicator of having healthy functioning skin , i have rough skin texture from years of pimples ( essentially scarring ) that might seem similar to pores ... maybe you're confused , am not trying to say you're wrong , but scars that have pores just doesn't sound right to me.   

Actually, you need to understand how the skin works. It has 3 layers. If the epidermis is injured, there is no scarring. The you have the dermis, most cuts extend to the dermis. And finally, you have the hypodermis or subcutaneous fat layer. You see hair follicles and pores actually lie on the surface of the hypodermis. So, many scars do actually contain hair follicles and pores because the injury didn't go any deeper than the dermis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Actually, you need to understand how the skin works. It has 3 layers. If the epidermis is injured, there is no scarring. The you have the dermis, most cuts extend to the dermis. And finally, you have the hypodermis or subcutaneous fat layer. You see hair follicles and pores actually lie on the surface of the hypodermis. So, many scars do actually contain hair follicles and pores because the injury didn't go any deeper than the dermis. 

exactly...people think every scar is same...

 

no man scarring depend on level of damage 

..if u have slight dermis damaged and u got an indented scar it will have pores but it will be indented ....

for example rollimg scars.they have same texure of skin and have appendages but they are indented due to volume

and whoever think a scar is a scar ...so tell me one thing are all eye injuries same ??? are all intestine ulcers same ???no they differ in severity 

if u look a burn contracture scar it has gone beyond hypoderms and lost pigments and appendages as well but if u look at some indented acne scars it have pores and hairs as well but indented due to loss of collagen and fats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, the reality is that microcoring wont solve your problem if your damage extends to the hypodermis. It will remove the surface scarring and strictly textural problems, giving a pretty smooth face, but it wont eliminate very deep pits. For that, you'll almost certainly need fat grafting. If you continue to get large cysts, you need to get on accutane, since near-future treatments will most likely not address the hypodermis damage that is typical of severe cysts. The dermis and epidermis are around 2mm combined; any deeper damage is much more difficult to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PTAA said:

At the end of the day, the reality is that microcoring wont solve your problem if your damage extends to the hypodermis. It will remove the surface scarring and strictly textural problems, giving a pretty smooth face, but it wont eliminate very deep pits. For that, you'll almost certainly need fat grafting. If you continue to get large cysts, you need to get on accutane, since near-future treatments will most likely not address the hypodermis damage that is typical of severe cysts. The dermis and epidermis are around 2mm combined; any deeper damage is much more difficult to fix.

Accutane is dangerous and messes up with the whole way your body functions. Unfortunately, there is no other way to treat cystic acne or its severe forms at this time. Sometimes, these cysts may not be acne. Folliculitis tends to form carbuncles which reach deep into the hypodermis. Wether you decide to go on Accutane or not, extensive damage has already occured to the skin. How the skin heals and the amount of scarring depends on genetics. 

Microcoring is just another gimmick to pray on the vulnerable. It will take many treatments to get that smooth face if ever. If people have the resources, then it is an improvement over laser treatments I believe. 

As for fat grafting, this procedure is slowly being phased out. The fat gets absorbed over months by the body because it treats it as something foreign. Skin fillers have been introduced to replace fat grafting. Many dermatologists are also using subcission. Unfortunately with subcission, the scar bonds tend to return over time unless you use a filler. These procedures are dangerous and if not done properly can make everything look worse. Most of these procedures do not work with ice pick scarring which are those tiny puncture holes. Most of us have this form of scarring. The only method that cam get you some improvement is TCA cross or excision. Excision is practiced less and less because a hypertrophic scar tends to form. You exchange the hole for a bigger raised angry looking scar. 

Bottom line is that if you have cystic acne, you must accepts that scarring will follow. Your skin will never be the same again and forever bear the marks of acne on your face.

Current procedures offer little to no improvement for scarring. Some people are quite fortunate enough to get significant improvements. 

The medical community has been quite slow in studying the true causes of cystic acne and acne in general. They have many theories and even blame testosterone as the culprit. Yet many adult women seem to suffer more and more.

In my opinion, acne has something to do with food. All these conservation agents seem to make certain bacteria to proliferate. 

Scarless healing can only be achieved when they figure out how to regrow severed limbs until then we can stare at our facial pits all day. 

Edited by MyBeautifulScars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Microcoring is just another gimmick to pray on the vulnerable. It will take many treatments to get that smooth face if ever. If people have the resources, then it is an improvement over laser treatments I believe. 

 

19 minutes ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

The only method that cam get you some improvement is TCA cross or excision. Excision is practiced less and less because a hypertrophic scar tends to form. You exchange the hole for a bigger raised angry looking scar. 

Both of these being in the same post is very ironic. Microcoring is, by definition, excision that doesn't leave a scar.

19 minutes ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Accutane is dangerous and messes up with the whole way your body functions. Unfortunately, there is no other way to treat cystic acne or its severe forms at this time. Sometimes, these cysts may not be acne. Folliculitis tends to form carbuncles which reach deep into the hypodermis. Wether you decide to go on Accutane or not, extensive damage has already occured to the skin. How the skin heals and the amount of scarring depends on genetics. 

Using a fringe case that accutane won't fix doesn't mean that people shouldn't be getting on it if they have cystic acne. It will cure the vast majority of people, even if it takes multiple courses.

Edited by PTAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PTAA said:

 

Both of these being in the same post is very ironic. Microcoring is, by definition, excision that doesn't leave a scar.

Using a fringe case that accutane won't fix doesn't mean that people shouldn't be getting on it if they have cystic acne. It will cure the vast majority of people, even if it takes multiple courses.

I don't understand why it is ironic? I stated the facts as they are. What guarantees do we have that microcoring works? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PTAA said:

At the end of the day, the reality is that microcoring wont solve your problem if your damage extends to the hypodermis. It will remove the surface scarring and strictly textural problems, giving a pretty smooth face, but it wont eliminate very deep pits. For that, you'll almost certainly need fat grafting. If you continue to get large cysts, you need to get on accutane, since near-future treatments will most likely not address the hypodermis damage that is typical of severe cysts. The dermis and epidermis are around 2mm combined; any deeper damage is much more difficult to fix.

This is not true. Cytrellis is in trials including surgical scars which are full thickness scars, and recros medica advertise on their website their intentions to trial on surgical scars also. Also skin thickness varies across the whole body. Submental area recros medica use 4mm I believe for full thickness core. 

7 hours ago, Anish004 said:

some scars which are not that deep have pores ...i repeat it and i can prove it. .. scars which are not that deep pores ( example some of my acne scar have pores i have seen it through a magnifying glass it had some pores ..and one of my hypertrophic scars also have pores and some hair also grows from it)

pores and hair are completely absent only in true fibrotic scars like burn scars ...accidental scars

Well having pores is not going to change whether a scar can be revised using micro-coring? Whether your scar is able to be excised will be looked at by the clinican. He won’t have a microscope looking for pores mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RefinedAzalea said:

Did anyone contact with Sunogel? They said they plan complete preclinical studies by the end of the third quarter of 2019.

Unfortunately, the website hasn't been updated for a while. They did add a few pics about using the gel on a full thickness wound and how it healed. The healed wound shows hair and hypopigmentation, scarring is present also but that can be hypopigmentation. My feeling is that pre-clinical trials should have ended by now but complications happened along the way. 

 

23 hours ago, nikki_gargin said:

This is not true. Cytrellis is in trials including surgical scars which are full thickness scars, and recros medica advertise on their website their intentions to trial on surgical scars also. Also skin thickness varies across the whole body. Submental area recros medica use 4mm I believe for full thickness core. 

Well having pores is not going to change whether a scar can be revised using micro-coring? Whether your scar is able to be excised will be looked at by the clinican. He won’t have a microscope looking for pores mate.

Healthy human skin contains pores and hair follicles. Any wound above 1.5-2 mm depth leads to scarring, it goes deep well into the dermis and touches the hypodermis. Some people get scars even from just injuring the epidermis. I have a hard time believing that excising 4 mm of scarred skin in depth will not generate another visible trace. 

The appearance of human scars depends on genetics. Some people barely have any after healing while most people get nasty ones. I for once get linear hypertrophic scars that fade over time from red raised bundles of collagen to slightly raised white linear lines or patches. 

Edited by MyBeautifulScars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Unfortunately, the website hasn't been updated for a while. They did add a few pics about using the gel on a full thickness wound and how it healed. The healed wound shows hair and hypopigmentation, scarring is present also but that can be hypopigmentation. My feeling is that pre-clinical trials should have ended by now but complications happened along the way. 

Where are the new pictures?Sunogel update the formation of their website but they didn't update the content.

Edited by RefinedAzalea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Actually, you need to understand how the skin works. It has 3 layers. If the epidermis is injured, there is no scarring. The you have the dermis, most cuts extend to the dermis. And finally, you have the hypodermis or subcutaneous fat layer. You see hair follicles and pores actually lie on the surface of the hypodermis. So, many scars do actually contain hair follicles and pores because the injury didn't go any deeper than the dermis. 

Ahh i see , so it depends on the level of skin damage , if it isn't so severe a pore will still be present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MyBeautifulScars said:

Unfortunately, the website hasn't been updated for a while. They did add a few pics about using the gel on a full thickness wound and how it healed. The healed wound shows hair and hypopigmentation, scarring is present also but that can be hypopigmentation. My feeling is that pre-clinical trials should have ended by now but complications happened along the way. 

 

Healthy human skin contains pores and hair follicles. Any wound above 1.5-2 mm depth leads to scarring, it goes deep well into the dermis and touches the hypodermis. Some people get scars even from just injuring the epidermis. I have a hard time believing that excising 4 mm of scarred skin in depth will not generate another visible trace. 

The appearance of human scars depend on genetics. Some people barely have any after hearing while most people get nasty ones. I for once get linear hypertrophic scars that fade over time from red raised bundles of collagen to slightly raised white linear lines or patches. 

They have photographic evidence though??? I hear what your saying but i am literally going with the evidence and so far 6% of participants did have some scarring. But not disfiguring scarring etc. So yes that is properly the genetic variable being shown in that 6%. It’s not the depth only, but the diameter of the wound that in more important. For example stick a pin in your full thickness skin. You won’t see a scar unless your prone to keloids etc. But them people are excluded from the trial due to that genetic variable.

ps that is erythema in the pic. So it might not be for you in that case, but for people like me it looks promising. 

5D112522-33D7-4B41-BF4E-9C7F59BC40C9.png

Edited by nikki_gargin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nikki_gargin said:

They have photographic evidence though??? I hear what your saying but i am literally going with the evidence and so far 6% of participants did have some scarring. But not disfiguring scarring etc. So yes that is properly the genetic variable being shown in that 6%. It’s not the depth only, but the diameter of the wound that in more important. For example stick a pin in your full thickness skin. You won’t see a scar unless your prone to keloids etc. But them people are excluded from the trial due to that genetic variable.

ps that is erythema in the pic. So it might not be for you in that case, but for people like me it looks promising. 

5D112522-33D7-4B41-BF4E-9C7F59BC40C9.png


Would this work for diabetics ? , because people that might have a genetically predisposed to diabetes are slower at healing from wounds .... regards xx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scarcure said:


Would this work for diabetics ? , because people that might have a genetically predisposed to diabetes are slower at healing from wounds .... regards xx.

Yeh there are restrictions on the trials. Read their patent might say on there specifically 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, I haven't been on here awhile, but I was wondering if there is any updates with Sunogel or FS2? I emailed Dr. Sun on LinkedIn today to check to see how things are rolling out in preclinicals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lip121212 said:

Hi everyone, I haven't been on here awhile, but I was wondering if there is any updates with Sunogel or FS2? I emailed Dr. Sun on LinkedIn today to check to see how things are rolling out in preclinicals. 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 12:17 AM, nikki_gargin said:

Yeh there are restrictions on the trials. Read their patent might say on there specifically 

I read it  , but again i don't think it would be an issue , if you have type 2 diabetes it can be controlled , it's all a question of diet and lifestyle ( anyone can get type 2 ) .... type 1 however is another concern ( genetic , also excessive high glucose to the point of shutting the immune system down and insulin production )

High glucose in your blood can be controlled , i think it would refer to type 1 diabetics ( where the immune system is adversely effected permanently ).

Every Human being can get type 2 diabetes though a terrible diet .... i think type 1 is the genetic one. 

Is this the case ?.

Also what needs to be considered is age.

Now we need to understand as we get older our ability to heal is compromised , so when scarless healing becomes a reality , would age matter ? , would any condition matter ? ( including type 1 diabetes ) , because after all scarless healing is just that , healing without scar , and most important to all of us on here getting rid of scars .....
  

 

Edited by Scarcure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lip121212 said:

Hi everyone, I haven't been on here awhile, but I was wondering if there is any updates with Sunogel or FS2? I emailed Dr. Sun on LinkedIn today to check to see how things are rolling out in preclinicals. 

Fantastic , well done .... the sooner the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a study about older people and wound healing and they found out that the older you are the less fibrosis they is in wounds. So i think age doesnt matter, it might work better for older people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, AlexZ77 said:

There was a study about older people and wound healing and they found out that the older you are the less fibrosis they is in wounds. So i think age doesnt matter, it might work better for older people

Kinda ironic if you think about it , as you get older you heal slower than when you're younger ..... great news for older people .... 

As far as microcoring , i think it'd work on someone with diabetes , however with slow healing it would take longer for someone to achieve the desired results .... 

Edited by Scarcure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted Sunogel regarding if has technology if successful would work on scar and wounds on diabetics , apparently from what i got from his massage it would work on all wounds and scars theoretically ( if his jello works that is , as after all it's still in pre clinical phase ) , so i don't think diabetes would be relevant.  

Apologies if i keep going on about diabetes , as people become more susceptible of it as we all get older , and we know it's going to take a couple more years until scarless healing is a reality.  

 

Edited by Scarcure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 8:56 AM, Lip121212 said:

Hi everyone, I haven't been on here awhile, but I was wondering if there is any updates with Sunogel or FS2? I emailed Dr. Sun on LinkedIn today to check to see how things are rolling out in preclinicals. 

Hello, did Dr.Sun reply to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes

×