Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Photobiomodulation: A Systematic Review of the Oncologic Safety of Low-Level Light Therapy for Aesthetic Skin Rejuvenation

Glass GE.

Systematic Review on Skin Aging, published in Aesthet Surg J (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
Aesthet Surg J (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36722207
PMCID
PMC10309024
DOI
10.1093/asj/sjad018
Citations
14

Abstract (original English)

Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy is an increasingly popular modality for aesthetic skin rejuvenation. PBM induces genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic processes within target cells, but such manipulation of cell behavior has led to concerns about oncologic safety. This article presents a summary of the clinical and preclinical evidence for the oncologic safety of PBM for aesthetic skin rejuvenation. A focused systematic review was performed, in which safety data from clinical trials of PBM for skin rejuvenation was supplemented by analyses of in vitro data obtained from cells derived from human skin and human neoplastic cells and in vivo data of tumors of the skin, oral cavity, and breast. Within established parameters, red and near infrared light mainly enhances proliferation of healthy cells without a clear pattern of influence on cell viability. The same light parameters mainly reduce neoplastic cell proliferation and viability or else make no difference. Invasiveness potential (appraised by cell migration assays and/or differential gene expression) is equivocal. PBM does not induce dysplastic change in healthy cells. In vivo tumor models yield varied results with no clear pattern emerging. There are no relevant clinical trial data linking PBM with any significant adverse events, including the finding of a new or recurrent malignancy.Current clinical and preclinical evidence

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
SkinHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRejuvenationProteomicsLow-Level Light Therapy

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research