الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 2 |  |  |
| | | from | 2 | | |
Abstract
Summary
Acne is a common disorder, that occurs as a result of sebaceous gland hyperactivity, altered keratinization of ductal keratinocytes and resultant follicular plugging, the hyper proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes, and inflammatory signaling. Various effective conventional therapies have been introduced, but still more effective, convenient, and safer therapies should be established, as conventional therapies are well known for adverse effects including poor efficacy, recurrence, high cost, irritation, bacterial resistance, and teratogenicity.
Newer therapeutic modalities such as light-based therapy have been developed to address the need for more efficacious and safer treatment. Laser and light therapies for acne are non‐invasive, produce rapid results and are effective and have relatively few adverse effects.
The aim of this work is to study the treatment of different types of acne vulgaris by ND-YAG laser and IPL in comparison to isotretinoin as a comparative study to assess potential role of their curative effect.
This was a randomized-Controlled Trial, which was carried out at dermatology outpatient clinic at Beni-Suef University hospital, through the period from 1st January 2019 to 1st January 2020, the study was conducted on 60 patients which were divided into 3 groups; First group(A): 30 patients who received isotretinoin dose ( 0.5-1 mg /kg/day according to moderate type ), Second group (B): 30 patients who received ND YAG laser in one half of the face as one session every month, and Third group(C): The same 30 patients who received receive Intense Pulsed Light at the second half of the face as one session every month.
The main results of the study revealed that:
No statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between studied groups as regard age and sex.
No statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between studied groups as regard acne duration
As regard pre-session acne score, there were: No statistically significant difference (p1 = 0.285) between group A & group B. No statistically significant difference (p2 = 0.689) between group A & group C. No statistically significant difference (p3 = 0.641) between group A & group B.
As regard 2nd session acne score, there were: No statistically significant difference (p1 = 0.947) between group A & group B. Statistically significant difference (p2 = 0.001) between group A & group C. Statistically significant difference (p3 = 0.001) between group A & group B.
As regard 4th session acne score, there were: No statistically significant difference (p1 = 0.546) between group A & group. Highly statistically significant difference (p2 < 0.001) between group A & group C. Highly statistically significant difference (p3 < 0.001) between group A & group B.
As regard 6th session acne score, there were: Highly statistically significant difference (p1 < 0.001) between group A & group B. Highly statistically significant difference (p2 < 0.001) between group A & group C. Highly statistically significant difference (p3 < 0.001) between group A & group B.
Highly statistically significant difference (p1 < 0.001) between acne score follow up (pre, 2nd, 4th & 6th session) in group B.
Highly statistically significant difference (p1 < 0.001) between acne score follow up (pre, 2nd, 4th & 6th session) in group C.