Skin Barrier Changes Induced by Aluminum Oxide and Sodium Chloride Microdermabrasion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microdermabrasion has become an extremely popular method for superficial resurfacing. Despite the popularity of this technique, published studies of skin barrier function changes following microdermabrasion are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To study assessed transepidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration, pH, and sebum production following aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and sodium chloride (NaCl) microdermabrasion. METHODS: Eight patients were included in this split face study. Transepidermal water loss, stratum corneum hydration, skin pH, and sebum production measurements were taken from the right and left sides of the face at baseline. One side of the face was treated with Al2O3 microdermabrasion and the other side with NaCl microdermabrasion. Measurements were repeated at 24 hours and 7 days. RESULTS: Both NaCl and Al2O3 microdermabrasion was associated with a statistically significant increase in TEWL at 24 hours. In contrast, at 7 days, levels of TEWL were decreased to less than baseline. In addition, an increase in hydration was observed 24 hours after NaCl and Al2O3 microdermabrasion. Hydration in NaCl-treated areas remained significantly increased at 7 days. CONCLUSION: The results of this investigation suggest that both NaCl and Al2O3 microdermabrasion alter the epidermal barrier. These changes in epidermal barrier function may be responsible for the clinical improvement following microdermabrasion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".