Dataset Information

Effect of a Facial Muscle Exercise Device on Facial Rejuvenation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy of facial muscle exercises (FMEs) for facial rejuvenation is controversial. In the majority of previous studies, nonquantitative assessment tools were used to assess the benefits of FMEs.

Objectives

This study examined the effectiveness of FMEs using a Pao (MTG, Nagoya, Japan) device to quantify facial rejuvenation.

Methods

Fifty females were asked to perform FMEs using a Pao device for 30 seconds twice a day for 8 weeks. Facial muscle thickness and cross-sectional area were measured sonographically. Facial surface distance, surface area, and volumes were determined using a laser scanning system before and after FME. Facial muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, midfacial surface distances, jawline surface distance, and lower facial surface area and volume were compared bilaterally before and after FME using a paired Student t test.

Results

The cross-sectional areas of the zygomaticus major and digastric muscles increased significantly (right: P < 0.001, left: P = 0.015), while the midfacial surface distances in the middle (right: P = 0.005, left: P = 0.047) and lower (right: P = 0.028, left: P = 0.019) planes as well as the jawline surface distances (right: P = 0.004, left: P = 0.003) decreased significantly after FME using the Pao device. The lower facial surface areas (right: P = 0.005, left: P = 0.006) and volumes (right: P = 0.001, left: P = 0.002) were also significantly reduced after FME using the Pao device.

Conclusions

FME using the Pao device can increase facial muscle thickness and cross-sectional area, thus contributing to facial rejuvenation.

Level of evidence 4

SUBMITTER: Hwang UJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5888959 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere remains little experimental evidence and no randomized clinical trial to date to confirm the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for facial rejuvenation.ObjectiveTo investigate whether PRP injection improves the visual appearance, including texture and color, of photodamaged facial skin.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized clinical trial, participants and raters were masked to groupings. The setting was an academic-based, urban outpatient dermatology practice in Chicago, Illinois. Participants were adults aged 18 to 70 years with bilateral cheek rhytids of Glogau class II or greater. The duration of the study was August 21, 2012, to February 16, 2016.InterventionsEach participant received 3 mL intradermal injections of PRP to one cheek and sterile normal saline to the contralateral cheek.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were photoaging scores (with subscores for fine lines, mottled pigmentation, roughness, and sallowness) as rated by 2 masked dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included participant self-assessment scores of improvement on a 5-point scale (worsening, no change, mild improvement, moderate improvement, or significant improvement), participant overall satisfaction scores on a 4-point scale (not satisfied, slightly satisfied, moderately satisfied, or very satisfied), and participant-reported or investigator-observed adverse events.ResultsOf 27 enrolled participants, 19 (mean [SD] age, 46.37 [10.88] years; 17 female) were analyzed. Reported adverse events, which were not associated with the study agent, included redness (n = 18), swelling (n = 16), bruising (n = 14), pruritus (n = 1), skin scaling (n = 1), and dryness of skin (n = 1). No participants reported any adverse events at 12 months. Mean (SD) photoaging scores rated by 2 dermatologists showed no significant difference between PRP and normal saline for fine lines (baseline, 1.00 [0.75] vs 1.05 [0.78]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 3 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 6 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]), mottled pigmentation (baseline, 1.21 [0.53] vs 1.21 [0.54]; 2 weeks, 1.16 [0.60] vs 1.16 [0.60]; 3 months, 1.00 [0.47] vs 1.11 [0.46]; 6 months, 1.16 [0.69] vs 1.16 [0.69]), skin roughness (baseline, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 2 weeks, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 3 months, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.60] vs 0.37 [0.68]), and skin sallowness (baseline, 1.11 [0.88] vs 1.11 [0.88]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.85] vs 0.95 [0.85]; 3 months, 0.58 [0.61] vs 0.58 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.68] vs 0.37 [0.68]). At 6 months after a single treatment, participants rated the PRP-treated side as significantly more improved compared with normal saline for texture (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 2.00 [1.20] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .02) and wrinkles (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 1.74 [0.99] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceMasked participants noted that both fine and coarse texture improved significantly more with a single treatment of PRP than with normal saline. Both participants and raters found PRP to be nominally but not significantly superior to normal saline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01372566.