Can ultrasound ruin tissue with long term use?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:41 pm

Sigma recently posted this information in a now locked thread. I wanted to bring this up on a new thread, as I am using the ultrasound and would definitely like more information on this topic.

Sigmas post: "I also know that ultrasound may ruin the tissue with long term use, so while occasional use is OK I would definitely be more hesitant to use it more then a few times a month. There are other ways to increase penetration."

Does anyone have any information on this?

free skin care · Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:50 am

I don't know the answer to your question, Rileygirl. But I did find this quote in an article about ultrasound in Skin Inc. magazine:

Wavelengths in the 1 MHz range can extend deeply to muscle and bones and are at greater risk for causing local tissue damage if not properly used.

http://www.drdayan.com/pdfs/Ultrasound.pdf

free skin care · Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:55 am

Thanks, Skippie. I know one should not use the 1 MHz on the face, as it is too strong. I currently use a 2 MHz. I am hoping Sigma will come along and post where she knows this from and/or provide some studies/links.

free skin care · Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:40 am

This is a good question.

Also, I looked through the studies referencing US technology and again, while the technology has research it to back it up, I have not been able to find any studies that tested any of the individual units available for sale.

So..that keeps me on the fence.

If anyone finds any other info, it would be great if it could be shared here.

Thanks, BF

Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:15 am

ditto everyone else. I just
got my bellaire 2mhz yesterday.
so im definately lookin for info.

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:57 am

I've just purchased the 2 mhz Bellaire Ultrasound as well. I'm on my third week of treatment so next week I will be on the once a week maintenance mode.

I must admit that I have done very little research into ultrasound for facials. However, this type of treatment has been around in salons for some years. Plus, I've read that Dr. Fernandes (the Dermaroller doctor) recommends it for product penetration. At this point in time, I have no concerns about using it - and I believe the Bellaire to be a very good device.

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:51 am

Keliu wrote:

Plus, I've read that Dr. Fernandes (the Dermaroller doctor) recommends it for product penetration. At this point in time, I have no concerns about using it - and I believe the Bellaire to be a very good device.

I was not aware that Dr. Fernandes recommended the ultrasound for product penetration.

I do agree that the Bellaire 2 MHz is a good device. I will try to do my own research this weekend and see if I can find out what Sigma may have been talking about.

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:28 am

Dr. Fernandes recommends both iontophoreis and sonophoresis, (US), but neither he nor his associates believe that any of the devices available for home usage are effective.

I posted more about this on the 302 thread a few weeks ago.

BF

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:15 am

Thanks, BFgirl. I remember that you did post that info. Sorry!

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:19 am

Hi rileygirl - In researching ultrasound products a couple years ago, I remember reading that if you use the ultrasound that goes deeply into the tissues, it can cause long term sagging; however, if the wave with the shortest penetration is used, there should be no problem.
Am sure that some of the websites which sell ultrasound products or medical websites can confirm which "wave' is best for skin rejuvenation. DiPhx

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:37 pm

I was given this link to an article that I thought was worth the read.

http://www.dermaconcepts.com/2007/2007_LesNouvelles_DF_Machine.pdf

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:38 pm

This is from 2004 by Alan Bunting regarding the use of Ultrasound, and the risk/dangers when used at home by non-professionals.. Worth the read for anyone using these devices, especially the cheap Asian imports;

http://www.ncea.tv/bunting.pdf#search='therapeutic%20ultrasound%20fda'

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:16 pm

Found a few more things.

http://www.shahfacialplastics.com/effects-low-frequency.html

And this from several sites. I have not had time to look into this further:

"The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery recently stated: "New skin care product formulations, used in conjunction with ULTRASOUND, will allow for deeper penetration of topically applied rejuvenating agents into the skin, resulting in significantly improved aesthetic results." "Early controlled studies suggest that externally-applied ultrasound can result in significant clinical skin rejuvenation benefits." Aesthetic Surgery Journal article's author David H. McDaniel, M.D."

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:21 pm

Sorry for not getting back to this topic earlier.

Several things:

1). My husband (who is a biomedical engineer) and is completely against me ever using it (and he very rarely objects to any of my endeavours).

2). One of his salesmen used to demo ultrasound machines on his hand (since there is no visual effects when demoing Ultrasound equip, he had water in the hand and from the other side were moving transducer, and the bubbles would start appearing). Several years later - that hand was seriously damaged (the tissue was destroyed to the point that it was difficult to use the hand).

3). Some of the info on bellaire side is not technically correct (according to some of the bio-medical engineers in the lab)

3). The important factor is not only the frequency (1 Mhz, 2, ...etc.), but the intensity. Most likely in the handheld units sold for cosmetic purposes it is prefixed.

One can do a simple test - put it in a glass of water and see the bubbles. If the bubbles are intense - the advice is to use the machine sparingly, otherwise it should be low enough not to be dangerous.

4). I believe (and feel free to correct me) that there is no long term studies of the effect of the frequent use of the Ultrasound devices for facial applications (i.e. use at your own risk).

HTH

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:27 pm

sigma wrote:

3). Some of the info on bellaire side is not technically correct (according to some of the bio-medical engineers in the lab)

4). I believe (and feel free to correct me) that there is no long term studies of the effect of the frequent use of the Ultrasound devices for facial applications (i.e. use at your own risk).

HTH

Can you provide more information on what is not technically correct on the Bellaire site? That would be of great help - especially to those of us using a Bellaire ultrasound/spatula. I would certainly be interested in hearing what the biomedical engineers have to say on the subject.

I agree, at least I cannot find any studies on the long term use of the ultrasound.

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:08 pm

Here's a PubMed study that's encouraging.. (I think.. Embarassed

)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17372061

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:56 pm

sigma wrote:

......

3). The important factor is not only the frequency (1 Mhz, 2, ...etc.), but the intensity. Most likely in the handheld units sold for cosmetic purposes it is prefixed.
HTH

Yeah, I just posted the comment from Dr. Huber & Mr. Yeung of Bellaire:

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17027&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=derma+wand&start=650

"......It is not the Mhz that is the issue, but the watts (or joules) per square centimeter AND the technique. The mhz only describes the depth of penetration, a 3 mhz for example barely penetrates the stratum corneum, and a 1 mhz will reach into and perhaps beyond the dermis......

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:09 pm

Boski posted this on the 302 thread:

I also asked Mr Yeung at Bellaire about 3 Mhz versus 2 Mhz ultrasound units. Here is his response. If you are interested in a 2 Hmz with the 1.0 w/cm2 output as recommended by Dr Huber, it is $165 for EDS members.

Hi Nancy,

In the past, there was only 1 MHz and 3 MHz ultrasound probes which were for body and face use respectively. A doctor approached our company and said that using 2 MHz ultrasound probes were better at penetrating their collagen creams for treatments. Clinical studies proved that results were much better with the 2 MHz so we specially made 2 MHz ultrasound probes that were specifically for his company. Now that the contract has expired, we are able to sell on the market.

As long as the energy intensity output levels of the 2 MHz or 3 MHz probes are at the correct ranges, it will not harm the skin at all (ie. melt facial fat, burn skin, etc). There are high power ultrasound that have energy intensity output of up to 10 w/cm2 that are used for breaking kidney stones in medical treatments so you definitely want to make sure the output levels of ultrasounds are correct.

2 MHz can penetrate product deeper than the 3 MHz ultrasound. In Japan, there was a clinical trial using 5 MHz ultrasound to penetrate lightening gel to treat pigmentation. Choosing between 2 or 3 MHz depends also on the product you use and the depth your treatments are targeting.

Best Regards,
Sing-Hong Yeung

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:31 am

Again, at the risk of repeating myself:
It appears conclusive that US can provide benefits to the skin. What remains inconclusive is whether any of the devices are effective for home use. I have searched high and low and find no independent studies on the devices themselves.
I am learning that here on EDS, there are groups using serums, techniques and devices that are not proven to be effective. All we have to go on are anecdotal reports from people behind screen names (and I do not doubt that some are genuine users not in the skincare business). We also have people who advocate these serums, techniques or devices using the "just trust me" line.
When questioned, they either stand up and admit there is no available data, or they launch an emotion-based personal attack, as if you are threatening their food bowl. My skin is precious to me and I am careful as to where I spend my time and money. We all get to make the same choices.

Best, BF

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:35 am

One more note and I begin my day:

When something is proven effective, the word gets around in a massive way. We have a powerful media complex and this complex loves stories of new and effective treatments. If the word doesn't get around via mainstream outlets, that tells me something. Of course, sometimes it just takes time.

So for most of it, I am happy to wait until the data is available. My skin deserves as much.
In the meantime, we already have some great things that proven to work.

But that's just me Smile

BF

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:16 am

I hear where you're coming from Barefoot Girl - and agree with you wholeheartedly. My problem is that I look at all this anti-aging stuff with a healthy dose of cynicism. I honestly don't think anything can make a significant difference to skin aging, except invasive procedures. As you point out - if there was something on the market that actually made a guaranteed VISIBLE difference to the skin, every woman in the world would be clamoring to use it and we would all know about it.

However, having said that, you can see by my signature line that I use every skin care gadget that I can lay may hands on. Whether they are actually doing anything significant is still up for debate. But I'm dedicated in my use of them. And considering that I'm nearing the age of 60 and completely desperate, I'll give just about anything a try - I'm also not a worrier so I just go for it. I will say, though, that since I discovered this Forum and all the wonderful advice it contains, the general look of my skin has improved greatly. I'm still waiting for that magic skin care wand though!

ETA - I've also been on a personal crusade to try and find some cohesive information on the various LED devices that are on the market. There appears to be no rhyme or reason in the various treatment protocols provided by the different manufacturers. Again there are really no long-term clinical studies on these devices, each manufacturer just refers to the NASA study. Until we have people that have used these gadgets on a long term basis, we're not going to know the effects, if any, they have on anti-aging.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:33 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

Again, at the risk of repeating myself:
It appears conclusive that US can provide benefits to the skin. What remains inconclusive is whether any of the devices are effective for home use. I have searched high and low and find no independent studies on the devices themselves.

Best, BF

Agree, as I have also searched and cannot yet find anything that confirms the home use US devices efficacy nor the long term safety of it.

I also agree that when questioned certain users will respond emotionally. Unfortunately, I think that some feel their beliefs/ideas/thoughts are in question when someone asks for proof and/or studies. People do not like their beliefs questioned, nor do they like to think they may be wrong in their choices - all human nature I am afraid! Some people are more emotional and some are more scientific.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:36 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

One more note and I begin my day:

When something is proven effective, the word gets around in a massive way. We have a powerful media complex and this complex loves stories of new and effective treatments.
BF

Yet, the media also tends to jump on bandwagons for ratings, so I don't truly trust what they say, either.

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:59 am

I agree as well.

Just wanted to mention - that after using Stop (which did not do too much to improve my skin) I developed a spot on my nose that definitely was not there before. I had to have it checked by the dermatologist (and now will have to check it regularly in addition to all other ones I have).

BTW - my mom (who is a practicing MD) refused to use the unit, and begged me not too. Stupid me.

To be honest I can not blame the manufacturer - I contacted them and they told me to contact my dermatologist and use only if he approves. To imagine that anyone here in the USA would approve use of the device they know nothing about would be ridiculous, and since I already purchased it I did not want it to go to waste. The rest is history.

I also do not know if I would have developed that spot by myself but just at a later time.

Just my 2 cents on the safety issues.

In terms of Ultrasound - the units sold for home use are most likely not powerful enough to cause any damage, to test that the suggestion was to try it in a glass of water (it would show the intensity) and that should be easy enough to do for the concerned.

I do not know the credentials of Boski or Dr. Huber & Mr. Yeung, all I can say that 302 skincare line made my skin worse not better, so I tend to treat all their recommendations with a degree of skepticism.

To be honest I just did a C+E+ferulic Acid serum based on Kassy's recipe and see some improvement within a few days, when I had seen none, or close to none or even worsening of my skin with so many praised products (praised by people here or on Truth in Ageing or recommended by SA), so go figure...

free skin care · Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:13 am

sigma wrote:

To be honest I just did a C+E+ferulic Acid serum based on Kassy's recipe and see some improvement within a few days, when I had seen none, or close to none or even worsening of my skin with so many praised products (praised by people here or on Truth in Ageing or recommended by SA), so go figure...

Well the efficacy of Vitamin C is yet another contentious issue. The general opinion of the scientific community is that Vitamin C oxidises almost immediately when exposed to light or air, rendering it completely useless. A chemist, whose opinion I value, told me that all of the OTC Vitamin C products are a waste of time. I started a thread on this subject just recently. http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?tid=35215

I still make and apply my own C+E+Ferulic Serum though.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.