| Literature DB >> 34080757 |
Joonoh Myoung1, Eui Taek Jeong1, Mina Kim1, Jun Man Lim1, Nae Gyu Kang1, Sun Gyoo Park1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduction in skin elasticity due to aging causes skin sagging and wrinkles. Although there are various objective and reliable techniques for measuring skin elasticity, it is difficult to obtain a visual representation of skin elasticity with them. Therefore, we developed a novel device, the Swing anglemeter, and analyzed its effectiveness for measuring skin elasticity of the cheek.Entities:
Keywords: Ballistometer®; age; correlation; quantitative evaluation; skin; visible evaluation
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34080757 PMCID: PMC9292868 DOI: 10.1111/srt.13051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Skin Res Technol ISSN: 0909-752X Impact factor: 2.240
FIGURE 1Device used to measure skin elasticity based on the elastic angle. (A) The user drops the ball by operating a switch, and the ball draws a curve and collides with the subject's cheek on the right side (yellow rectangle: electromagnet switch). (B) A tripod and iPhone SE are installed in front of the device to record the movement of the ball. (C) The schematization for the elastic angle, the maximum angle at which the ball bounces. SE, Special Edition
Parameters calculated by the Ballistometer®
| Parameter (unit) | |
|---|---|
| Alpha (AU) | Rate of exponential decay |
| CoR 1, 2, 3 (AU) | Coefficient of restitution for the first, second, and third bounces |
| Mean CoR (AU) | Average of CoR 1, CoR 2, and CoR 3 |
| Area (mm2) | Area under the curve |
| K (mm) | Start height |
| Indentation (mm) | Indentation depth |
Abbreviations: AU, arbitrary unit; CoR, coefficient of restitution.
Changes in the elastic angle by age (N = 45)
| Age groups (y) | 20s (n = 11) | 30s (n = 14) | 40s (n = 10) | ≥50s (n = 10) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elastic angle (degree) | 23.87 (±1.48) | 21.82 (±1.32) | 20.10 (±2.25) | 17.77 (±2.35) | <.001 |
Results are expressed as the mean (±standard deviation).
Changes in the elastic angle by age group were analyzed using one‐way analysis of variance, and the differences between the groups were statistically significant.
P < .001.
FIGURE 2Images for comparison of the elastic angle in two different age groups. (A) The elastic angle (angle in red circle) of the 20s group is significantly higher than that of the ≥50s group (B). Results were statistically compared using post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction (P < .001)
FIGURE 3Correlation between age and the elastic angle. The distribution between age and the elastic angle is negatively and significantly correlated. (Pearson correlation coefficient: r = −.799, P < .001)
FIGURE 4Correlations between the calculated Ballistometer® measurements and the elastic angle. The distributions between the elastic angle and Ballistometer® measurements show a negative correlation with (A) alpha and positive correlations with (B) mean CoR and (C) area. All correlation coefficients are significant (Pearson correlation coefficient: r = −.570, P < .001 for Alpha; r = .602, P < .001 for mean CoR; r = .535, P < .001 for area). CoR, coefficient of restitution; AU, arbitrary unit