X Wang1, X Shu2, Z Li2, W Huo2, L Zou2, Y Tang2, L Li1. 1. Department of Dermatology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Cosmetics Evaluation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin imaging analysis, acting as a supplement to noninvasive bioengineering devices, has been widely used in medical cosmetology and cosmetic product evaluation. The main aim of this study is to assess the differences and correlations in measuring skin spots, wrinkles, vascular features, porphyrin, and pore between two commercially available image analysis software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy healthy women were included in the study. Before taking pictures, the dermatologist evaluated subjects' skin conditions. Test sites included the forehead, cheek, and periorbital skin. A 2 × 2 cm cardboard was used to make a mark on the skin surface. Pictures were taken using VISIA® under three kinds light conditions and analyzed using VISIA® and IPP® respectively. RESULTS: (1) Skin pore, red area, ultraviolet spot, brown spot, porphyrin, and wrinkle measured with VISIA® were correlated with those measured with IPP® (P < .01). (2) Spot, wrinkle, fine line, brown spot, and red area analyzed with VISIA® were correlated with age on the forehead and periorbital skin (P < .05). L-value, Crow's feet, ultraviolet spot, brown spot, and red area analyzed with IPP® were correlated with age on the periorbital skin (P < .05). (3) L-value, spot, wrinkle, fine line, porphyrin, red area, and pore analyzed with VISIA® and IPP® showed correlations with the subjective evaluation scores (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: VISIA® and IPP® showed acceptable correlation in measuring various skin conditions. VISIA® showed a high sensibility when measured on the forehead skin. IPP® is available as an alternative software program to evaluate skin features.
BACKGROUND: Skin imaging analysis, acting as a supplement to noninvasive bioengineering devices, has been widely used in medical cosmetology and cosmetic product evaluation. The main aim of this study is to assess the differences and correlations in measuring skin spots, wrinkles, vascular features, porphyrin, and pore between two commercially available image analysis software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy healthy women were included in the study. Before taking pictures, the dermatologist evaluated subjects' skin conditions. Test sites included the forehead, cheek, and periorbital skin. A 2 × 2 cm cardboard was used to make a mark on the skin surface. Pictures were taken using VISIA® under three kinds light conditions and analyzed using VISIA® and IPP® respectively. RESULTS: (1) Skin pore, red area, ultraviolet spot, brown spot, porphyrin, and wrinkle measured with VISIA® were correlated with those measured with IPP® (P < .01). (2) Spot, wrinkle, fine line, brown spot, and red area analyzed with VISIA® were correlated with age on the forehead and periorbital skin (P < .05). L-value, Crow's feet, ultraviolet spot, brown spot, and red area analyzed with IPP® were correlated with age on the periorbital skin (P < .05). (3) L-value, spot, wrinkle, fine line, porphyrin, red area, and pore analyzed with VISIA® and IPP® showed correlations with the subjective evaluation scores (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: VISIA® and IPP® showed acceptable correlation in measuring various skin conditions. VISIA® showed a high sensibility when measured on the forehead skin. IPP® is available as an alternative software program to evaluate skin features.