I read on the internet an article from 2002 which said that studies show that after 1 session of laser epilation 77% of the hair had grown back after 1 year. I think that 1 session also isn’t enough. The question is wether 1 session eliminated 23% of the hair and the 77% of the hair was not affected by the laser or wether this means that the laser isn’t really permanent.
How huge is the chance that the hairs come back after a few months or years?
please read the FAQs. You can’t judge anything from one treatments. please read and understand how hair growth and cycles work. it’s impossible to kill hair all at once.
www.hairremovalforum.com/faq.cfm
here’s one of the better studies readily available online. you would have to go to the library and do serious research for most. also, many are not unbiased as they’re commissioned by laser manufacturers, so watch out for those.
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/htm/programmer/kontant/haarfjerningrapport.pdf
Before I went and got test spots done I did an extensive literature review on the mechanics, short-term, and long-term efficacy of LHR. I searched PubMED and found a few dozen studies that looked at mechanics and short-term efficacy, but no research that looked at results longer than one year. The best evidence for short-term hair loss were two meta analyses found in the Cochrane Library. Most importantly there are a lack of studies with high quality methods (such as randomized control trials). Nevertheless, here are the abstracts I found:
Haedersdal M, Gøtzsche PC. (2006). Laser and photoepilation for unwanted hair growth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004684.
We included eleven randomised controlled trials involving 444 people, none of which were of high methodological quality. A large number of trials were excluded, mainly because of their non-randomised design. The randomisation procedures were either unclear or inadequate, using coin tossing, alternation, drawing lots or cards, or open tables of random numbers. The interventions and outcomes were too heterogeneous to be entered in a meta-analysis. Most trials examined a short-term effect up to six months after final treatment. There appeared to be a short-term effect of approximately 50% hair reduction with alexandrite and diode lasers up to six months after treatment, whereas little evidence was obtained for an effect of intense pulsed light, neodymium:YAG or ruby lasers. Long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. Pain, skin redness, swelling, burned hairs and pigmentary changes were infrequently reported adverse effects. Some treatments lead to temporary short-term hair removal. High quality research is needed on the effect of laser and photoepilation.
Haedersal and Wolf (2006) Evidence-based review of hair removal using lasers and light sources. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology 20(1):9-20
Results A total of 9 randomized controlled (RCTs) and 21 controlled trials (CTs) were identified. The best available evidence was found for the alexandrite (three RCTs, eight CTs) and diode (three RCTs, four CTs) lasers, followed by the ruby (two RCTs, six CTs) and Nd:YAG (two RCTs, four CTs) lasers, whereas limited evidence was available for IPL sources (one RCT, one CT). Based on the present best available evidence we conclude that (i) epilation with lasers and light sources induces a partial short-term hair reduction up to 6 months postoperatively, (ii) efficacy is improved when repeated treatments are given, (iii) efficacy is superior to conventional treatments (shaving, wax epilation, electrolysis), (iv) evidence exists for a partial long-term hair removal efficacy beyond 6 months postoperatively after repetitive treatments with alexandrite and diode lasers and probably after treatment with ruby and Nd:YAG lasers, whereas evidence is lacking for long-term hair removal after IPL treatment, (v) today there is no evidence for a complete and persistent hair removal efficacy, (vi) the occurrence of postoperative side-effects is reported low for all the laser systems.
Good luck!
Thanks.
But this looks as if IPL has no scientific support at all!
I thought that IPL was even accepted by the FDA as permanent hair removal. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
This study has been mentioned here already and I have read it completely. This statement alone:
conventional treatments (shaving, wax epilation, electrolysis)
…destroys the credibility of anything they were attempting to put forth. Even the most unknowing, hair removing beginner knows putting shaving in the same catagory as electrolysis is just beyond base level hype. It doesn’t float. This is just one of the many inaccuracies of this study. Sample group, cross control, electrolysis group, control, follow up status of all modes presented, it just goes on, are all unscientific.
Mantaray