» Articles » PMID: 31947903

Quantitative Monitoring of Tattoo Contrast Variations After 755-nm Laser Treatments in In Vivo Tattoo Models

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2020 Jan 18
PMID 31947903
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Laser lights have been used by dermatologists for tattoo removal through photothermal interactions. However, most clinical studies used a visual scoring method to evaluate the tattoo removal process less objectively, leading to unnecessary treatments. This study aimed to develop a simple and quantitative imaging method to monitor the degree of tattoo removal in in vivo skin models. Sprague Dawley rat models were tattooed with four different concentrations of black inks. Laser treatment was performed weekly on the tattoos using a wavelength of 755 nm over six weeks. Images of non-treated and treated samples were captured using the same method after each treatment. The intensities of the tattoos were measured to estimate the contrast for quantitative comparison. The results demonstrated that the proposed monitoring method quantified the variations in tattoo contrast after the laser treatment. Histological analysis validated the significant removal of tattoo inks, no thermal injury to adjacent tissue, and uniform remodeling of epidermal and dermal layers after multiple treatments. This study demonstrated the potential of the quantitative monitoring technique in assessing the degree of clearance level objectively during laser treatments in clinics.

Citing Articles

An EEG-based framework for automated discrimination of conversion to Alzheimer's disease in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: an 18-month longitudinal study.

Ge Y, Yin J, Chen C, Yang S, Han Y, Ding C Front Aging Neurosci. 2025; 16():1470836.

PMID: 39834619 PMC: 11743677. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2024.1470836.


Smart Tattoo Sensors 2.0: A Ten-Year Progress Report through a Narrative Review.

Pirrera A, Giansanti D Bioengineering (Basel). 2024; 11(4).

PMID: 38671797 PMC: 11048663. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11040376.


Immune Response in Laser Tattoo Removal: A Systematic Review.

Tjipta A, Ramadhan H, Lubis R J Lasers Med Sci. 2024; 14:e66.

PMID: 38318216 PMC: 10843227. DOI: 10.34172/jlms.2023.66.


Q-Switched 1064/532 nm Laser with Nanosecond Pulse in Tattoo Treatment: A Double-Center Retrospective Study.

Cannarozzo G, Nistico S, Zappia E, Del Duca E, Provenzano E, Patruno C Life (Basel). 2021; 11(7).

PMID: 34357071 PMC: 8304052. DOI: 10.3390/life11070699.

References
1.
Kent K, Graber E . Laser tattoo removal: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2011; 38(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.02187.x. View

2.
Ramirez M, Magee N, Diven D, Colome-Grimmer M, Motamedi M, Oliveira G . Topical imiquimod as an adjuvant to laser removal of mature tattoos in an animal model. Dermatol Surg. 2007; 33(3):319-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2007.33067.x. View

3.
Bernstein E, Civiok J . A continuously variable beam-diameter, high-fluence, Q-switched Nd:YAG laser for tattoo removal: comparison of the maximum beam diameter to a standard 4-mm-diameter treatment beam. Lasers Surg Med. 2013; 45(10):621-7. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.22203. View

4.
Anderson R, Parrish J . Selective photothermolysis: precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science. 1983; 220(4596):524-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.6836297. View

5.
Handley J . Adverse events associated with nonablative cutaneous visible and infrared laser treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006; 55(3):482-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.03.029. View