Talk:Intense pulsed light

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Permanently removing hair

"Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) is a method of permanently removing hair from the body" - true or false? I've seen various claims stating that IPL may produce a permanent result, but very few clinics in practise will claim this. It's a contentious claim - see [1]. Comments, anyone? - PeteC 16:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got a comment about getting this done to my pubes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.168.185 (talk • contribs)

Comment away, so. Genital IPL is surprisingly common - Alison ^✍ 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the law of bio-physics that hair removal can not be permanent until the stem cells that control the regeneration of the destroyed hair follicles are removed. The intense pulsed light or laser devices may destroy the hair follicle or damage the follicle sufficiently to leave it incapable of growing a new hair shaft. But eventually the stem cells will regenerate the hair follicle (that is what stem cells are for) and the hair will return. If a physician or a beauty clinique claim that their equipment can do permanent hair removal, you just need to ask for clinical results (hair counts) made at 2 or 3 year follow-up … for most devices such data simply do not exist. Check the name of the IPL or laser; some cliniques will provide you with data that are produced with other (more safe and efficient) devices - do not trust such cliniques. - Bo 8:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Stem cells in hair follicles? Is there any scientific data to support such a notion? ---Peter, 6 June 2007

Certainly – a number of multipotent stem cell repositories are found in the dermis. The main purpose of these cells are to renew damaged or dead tissue structures. Please notice, these are not identical to the pluripotent stem cells that people are discussing so intensely these years. The dermal multipotent stem cells creates dermal cells only – not new organs or anything else. If you search PubMed or Google Scholar using the search term "stem cells" AND "hair follicles" a number of high quality literature is found – many of the papers are printed in peer reviewed magazines. One paper that sums things up nicely is: J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2003 Jun;8(1):28-38. Hair follicle stem cells. Lavker RM, et al. A more ”popular” reference is found at this BBC news page --- Bo 212.242.116.214 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ipl

ipl is really a good way for epilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.180.166 (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic Page

This page is terrible given the commonness of this type of treatment and technology. I've researched and written many papers on hair removal over the years and will spend some time on it during coming weeks. XavierT3000 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPL Definition

The previous version of the Definition section of this page claimed that laser hair removal carries a "radiation risk". I guess the author thinks lasers cause cancer? If so, then lightbulbs do too. Whether monochromatic or not, it's all just visible light. I've changed it and added an external link to a page with a list of peer-reviewed clinical research. Please try to use these or similar sources when adding medical information to this page. Telefox (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job user Pol098, that page looks a lot better now. It'd be nice if a professional could add some expert advice as well. This is a low-priority article, but it's the kind of thing people need an unbiased source of information about. Telefox (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation

Regulations Regulations cover IPL under the topic of Non-ionising radiation. The EU issues directives which are then transposed into national law by the member countries. For every application several directives might be applicable. For example IPL applications will fall at least under the directive regarding non-ionising radiation and the medical device directive. Directives are general legal requirements. For application to devices there are standards, such as EN 60601-2-57 (http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030165798) Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of non-laser light source equipment intended for therapeutic, diagnostic, monitoring and cosmetic/aesthetic use EN 62471 Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems

Directive: minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to risks arising from physical agents (artificial optical radiation) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:114:0038:0059:EN:PDF) Germany: Gesetz zum Schutz vor nichtionisierender Strahlung bei der Anwendung am Menschen (NiSG) (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/nisg/gesamt.pdf) The German wikipedia article to IPL is found under Epilation: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilation#IPL-Technik 178.78.75.150 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength and Frequency Confusion

the article states "The technology utilises a broad spectrum lightsource, with a general spectral range of 515 to 1200 nm. Various cutoff filters are commonly used to filter out lower frequencies" Where as the laser hair removal page in it's section comparison with IPL says "IPL systems typically output wavelengths between 400 nm and 1200 nm. Filters are applied to block lower wavelengths, thereby only utilising the longer, redder wavelengths for clinical applications." These two statements are in direct contradiction with each other. low wavelength is higher frequency and low frequency is high wavelength. Since all citations on this are paid journals i can't tell which is wrong. but the scientist in me is more inclined to believe that shorter wavelengths are being filtered out, as the red end of the spectrum is going to be more useful given that it will not be absorbed by the blood. which means the opening paragraph of this page is wrong. (incidentally i'm not concerned with the different lower and wavelength figures of 400nm and 515nm, as with any broad distribution determining the end of it is not straightforward.) Flagpolewiki (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should say "Various cutoff filters are commonly used to filter out higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths), especially the damaging ultraviolet rays." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.54.25 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intense pulsed light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources and unverified statements removed

I deleted the following sentence. The source provided was a blog post from med spa that markets and sells BBL treatments. Vendor and e-commerce sources are generally to be avoided.

"The differences between IPL and BBL fundamentally come down to operating on different wave lengths. With advances in research, science and light technology, BBL provides more accurate parameters to deliver more targeted and superior results than its IPL counterpart."

I deleted the following sentence. The source provided was a paper by a doctor chronicling her experience using BBL on Asian patients. It made no reference to DNA, skin cells, or "cellular ageing."

The paper is published by Sciton. Sciton manufactures and sells the BBL technology. Vendor and e-commerce sources are generally to be avoided.

"Extensive studies and research have shown that regular BBL treatments not only prevent cellular ageing, but also "turn back the clock", causing the DNA expression of skin cells to revert to a youthful, healthy state."

(Pesterblue (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]