Automated Microneedling Versus Fractional CO2 Laser in Treatment of Traumatic Scars: A Clinical and Histochemical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Microneedling has shown satisfactory effects in scar rejuvenation. Comparisons of its results with fractional laser are limited. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of automated microneedling versus fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser in treatment of traumatic scars on clinical and histochemical bases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with traumatic facial scars were randomized to treatment with 4 monthly sessions of either automated microneedling or fractional CO2 laser. Assessment of scars was performed at baseline and 3 months after the last treatment session, clinically by the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) and histochemically by quantitative assessment of collagen and elastic fibers. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvement in mVSS, collagen, and elastin contents after treatment. Percentage improvement of collagen and elastin content was higher after treatment by a laser compared with microneedling, in case of the collagen content. Percentage increase in the collagen content after treatment was higher in atrophic scars of the laser group than those of the microneedling group. CONCLUSION: In this small study, microneedling was as safe as fractional CO2 laser for rejuvenation of traumatic scars with comparable clinical effects. Fractional CO2 laser is more powerful in stimulating neocollagenesis. Automated microneedling is effective for treatment of hypertrophic scars.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".