Comparison of the therapeutic response of both PRP and 15% AHA versus 15% AHA alone in patients with facial wrinkles

Abstract

The aging process starts from birth in humans and continues throughout life. The skin aging process is the result of several events in the dermis, epidermis, pigment cells, hair follicles, sebaceous glands, blood vessels, and secondary organs in the skin layers. Hydroxy acids, which are also known as fruit acids, are inorganic acids and have been used for the treatment of skin diseases for the past 40 years. On the other hand, platelet-rich plasma, or PRP, which is prepared in the form of platelet gel, increases the survival of lipocytes and lipoblasts. The current study aims to compare the therapeutic response of the simultaneous use of PRP and AHA 15% methods versus the use of 15% AHA alone in patients with facial wrinkles. Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, in both groups, a photograph of the face was first prepared, and then one group was given intradermal PRP injection every two months along with 15% AHA at night, and the other group was given 15% AHA at night. It was administered alone (the time of PRP injection includes the base time, the third month, and the fifth month). Patients were evaluated based on specific criteria. Patients were evaluated one month, three months, and six months after the intervention. The results of the two groups were compared regarding the severity of facial wrinkles, the degree of tissue recovery, and the homogeneity of the skin, as well as the patient's self-satisfaction at the follow-up times with the beginning of the treatment and between the two groups. Results: 60 patients with superficial skin wrinkles of moderate to severe severity were examined in two intervention and control groups. All patients were female and had no underlying disease. The average age of the patients was 39.35 ± 3.42 years with a range of 31-44 years. Improvement of cheek wrinkles in the 6th month and nasolabial wrinkles in the intervention group were significantly better than the control group during the entire follow-up period. Also, the stability of the treatment was significantly better in the intervention group than in the control group. On the other hand, there was no difference between the two groups in patient satisfaction with the treatment.