| Literature DB >> 31975502 |
Pattarawan Rattanawiwatpong1, Rungsima Wanitphakdeedecha2, Akkarach Bumrungpert1, Mart Maiprasert1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin aging has many manifestations such as wrinkles, uneven skin tone, and dryness. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, especially ultraviolet light-induced oxidative radicals, contribute to the etiology of aging. Human skin requires both water- and lipid-soluble nutrient components, including hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants. Vitamins C and E have important protective effects in the aging process and require exogenous supply. Raspberry leaf extracts contain botanical actives that have the potential to hydrating and moisturizing skin. Topical products with these ingredients may therefore combine to provide improved anti-aging effects over single ingredients.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; raspberry leaf cell culture extract; skin aging; skin radiance; vitamin C; vitamin E
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31975502 PMCID: PMC7027822 DOI: 10.1111/jocd.13305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cosmet Dermatol ISSN: 1473-2130 Impact factor: 2.696
Figure 1Mean melanin index (A), R2 ratio (B), and gloss DSC value (C) at baseline, 4, and 8 wk. P‐value < .05, determined as significant value
The results of skin parameters
| Parameters | Treated side | Untreated side |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 4 wk | 8 wk | Baseline | 4 wk | 8 wk | |||
| R2 ratio | 0.63 ± 0.06 | 0.68 ± 0.07 | 0.72 ± 0.06 | 0.65 ± 0.10 | 0.64 ± 0.10 | 0.64 ± 0.10 | .07 | <.0001 |
| Melanin index | 226.7 ± 42.4 | 213.7 ± 39.4 | 209.3 ± 41.2 | 223.1 ± 42.6 | 222.3 ± 44.9 | 225.4 ± 46.6 | .557 | <.0001 |
| Gloss DSC value | 4.09 ± 1.52 | 4.90 ± 1.65 | 5.08 ± 1.61 | 4.41 ± 1.58 | 4.31 ± 1.49 | 4.41 ± 1.71 | .0221 | .0201 |
| Moisture level | 73.04 ± 9.35 | 74.33 ± 8.46 | 73.77 ± 9.75 | 72.09 ± 9.29 | 73.77 ± 8.13 | 73.62 ± 10.06 | >.9999 | >.9999 |
| TEWL (g/h/m2) | 11.48 ± 2.38 | 12.45 ± 2.05 | 11.79 ± 2.15 | 11.10 ± 2.04 | 12.87 ± 2.09 | 11.66 ± 2.45 | >.9999 | >.9999 |
| SELS parameters | ||||||||
| SEsm | 178.7 ± 28.2 | 160.9 ± 24.2 | 154.4 ± 23.8 | 171.3 ± 30.4 | 173.0 ± 34.5 | 171.8 ± 31.3 | .0233 | <.0001 |
| SEr | 2.98 ± 1.02 | 2.51 ± 0.80 | 2.27 ± 0.78 | 2.69 ± 0.90 | 2.74 ± 0.93 | 2.82 ± 0.92 | .206 | <.0001 |
| SEsc | 0.67 ± 0.11 | 0.58 ± 0.12 | 0.55 ± 0.11 | 0.67 ± 0.13 | 0.66 ± 0.12 | 0.68 ± 0.13 | .0317 | <.0001 |
| SEw | 67.96 ± 15.64 | 58.46 ± 13.41 | 57.21 ± 12.79 | 64.82 ± 14.66 | 65.59 ± 14.93 | 66.39 ± 14.77 | .001 | <.0001 |
| Gross lifting effect | ||||||||
| Medial canthus | 164.5 ± 7.4 | 164.7 ± 7.1 | 164.7 ± 6.6 | 164.7 ± 7.3 | 164.8 ± 7.2 | 164.6 ± 6.7 | >.9999 | >.9999 |
| Lateral canthus | 153.9 ± 7.3 | 154.1 ± 7.4 | 153.3 ± 6.5 | 153.6 ± 7.3 | 153.7 ± 7.2 | 153.4 ± 6.2 | >.9999 | >.9999 |
Abbreviations: P1, P‐value at 4 wk (comparison to control); P2, P‐value at 8 wk (comparison to control); P value < .05 considered significant; R2 ratio, skin elasticity; SEr, skin roughness; SEsc, skin scaliness; SEsm, skin smoothness; Sew, wrinkles; TEWL, transepidermal water loss (g/h/m2).
Figure 2Mean SEsm (A), SEsc (B), SEw (C), and SEr (D) values at baseline, 4, and 8 wk. SEsm and SEr values are inversely proportional to skin smoothness and skin roughness, respectively. P‐value < .05, determined as significant value