More than half of institute’s patients showed an increase in hair count by 50 percent after 36 treatments. In reviewing copious literature establishing biostimulation science, it seems if we will identify optimal wavelength and adjustable dosing regimens, and create device that usually can bypass hair and skin to uniformly reach cellular targets, we should achieve a hair growth benefit. While existing research using LLLT for biostimulation has not determined if results from these devices could be sustained, even so. Inherent limitations in study design and clinical application will apply as long as dosing schedules will not consider melanin and akin chromophores in hair and skin and as long as stationary application of light beams occur that can not hope to stimulate cellular targets outside their beams. Now this device has not been used to conduct a controlled study. Optimal study population for standardized LLLT device evaluation always were men with moderate thinning, pretty short/shaved blonde hair, and fair skin so identical dosing regimens should be used and quite similar light dose will be expected to pass through hair and skin to reach cellular targets.
For the most part there’re patients unable to lerate existing therapies just like finasteride or pical minoxidil.
An alternate effective therapy may be extremely useful.
It’s an interesting fact that the in vitro data from cultured cells documented quite a few wavelength ranges that would optimize stimulation of DNA synthesis, that, ostensibly, promotes growth factors to grow hair. Entirely one device currently cleared for use includes a wavelength promoting optimal DNA synthesis in cell cultures, as previously noted in this series. Basically doctors continue to sell or recommend them, it’s unlikely businesses going to be motivated to test alternate wavelengths or dosing regimens, as long as patients continue to purchase existing LLLT devices. And now here is the question. Who will conduct this study? In the fourth study to be evaluated, Laser Comb study had patients largest number, credible evidence to guide effectiveness for MOST patients who use these devices always was ignoring.
Essential questions about dosing for LLLT therapy remain unanswered.
An awareness of how to interpret or evaluate this methodology is probably essential for readers to see, if you are going to evaluate study accuracy conclusions.
Investigators must be experienced in photo study preparation area and also how to photograph for uniform before and after data collection accuracy and ease of comparison, when evaluating phototrichogram data intended to compare hair counts. Hair counts are usually tedious and ugh and require adherence to specific comparative techniques. Not for largest study with the Laser Comb, with an eye to compare device results, identical data points similar to percentage hair count increase or absolute hair counts were used and will be searched with success for in Table Absolute hair counts from raw data were attainable for the smaller helmet studies.
Number of laser diodes, table one compares device characteristics including wavelength controlled trials.
Dramatic hair growth claims going to be an indication for closer scrutiny.
When not readily corroborated by visual assessment, credibility of hair count data accuracy usually can be supposed by comparing reported hair counts to results from credible studies of recognized hair growth promoters. In performing data reanalysis, first the LLLT device data was compared to an average 15 increase in hair counts achieved with FDA approved finasteride. Now look. Accordingly a visual published analysis phototrichograms supposed that were published, did not support hair growth claims. One study included completely males and another, solely females. However, for women, so this number was a whopping 50 increase, In the male study, average increased hair counts were 65percentage. In one and the other studies, published phototrichograms revealed non uniformity in hair length and camera perspective. On p of this, presumably, I’d say in case each laser diode or LED were comparable in biostimulating properties, there should be no need for variation.
At no time did researchers indicate light which beams is applied to a given study area neither were explanations offered as to why multiple light beams were part of a device, and how the study model was designed to assess every of them.
Light transmission was always affected by distance and angulation, in addition to chromophores.
Regardless, these studies did not provide information to elucidate these questions. While proximity to skin reduces their area of coverage, as mentioned in Part 1, lED lights cover a broader area as they have probably been less coherent and collimated distance from the skin reduces their power. Remember, as a matter of fact, study methodology made it impossible to see whether numerous wavelengths used had equal utility, or contribution to results. Identical limitation in LLLT ability to reach all cellular targets on affected scalp must be considered for stationary devices where light beams usually can mostly affect cells in their path. Nonetheless, completely those devices 510 cleared are lawful for sale in United States, and it behooves patients everywhere to ensure any medicinal device they purchase had been evaluated for safety mislabeled lasers are a safety hazard.