BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Acne scarring is a common complication of acne but no effective single treatment modality has been developed. To compare the efficacy of 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser and chemical reconstruction of skin scar (CROSS) method in the treatment of acne scars. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: A split-face trial was conducted in 20 patients (10 rolling, 10 icepick types) with acne scars. One side was treated with the 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser three times with a 6-week interval. And the other side was treated with CROSS method two times every 12 weeks. RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed in both sides of the face. In rolling type, the objective and subjective improvement rates were significantly higher in the sides treated with laser than CROSS method. However, in icepick type, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment sides. In the laser sides, grades of pain were significantly higher than that of treated with CROSS method. However, downtimes and lasting days of erythema were significantly longer in the sides treated with CROSS method. CONCLUSION: A 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser and CROSS method are both well-tolerated and effective treatment options in the acne scars. However, there was a relatively small difference between the two treatment modalities. Therefore, dermatologists should consider the acne scar type to select the treatment options. Lasers Surg. Med. 41:545-549, 2009. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Acne scarring is a common complication of acne but no effective single treatment modality has been developed. To compare the efficacy of 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser and chemical reconstruction of skin scar (CROSS) method in the treatment of acne scars. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: A split-face trial was conducted in 20 patients (10 rolling, 10 icepick types) with acne scars. One side was treated with the 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser three times with a 6-week interval. And the other side was treated with CROSS method two times every 12 weeks. RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed in both sides of the face. In rolling type, the objective and subjective improvement rates were significantly higher in the sides treated with laser than CROSS method. However, in icepick type, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment sides. In the laser sides, grades of pain were significantly higher than that of treated with CROSS method. However, downtimes and lasting days of erythema were significantly longer in the sides treated with CROSS method. CONCLUSION: A 1,550 nm Er:Glass fractional laser and CROSS method are both well-tolerated and effective treatment options in the acne scars. However, there was a relatively small difference between the two treatment modalities. Therefore, dermatologists should consider the acne scar type to select the treatment options. Lasers Surg. Med. 41:545-549, 2009. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.