What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of photothermal biomodulated PRP against standard PRP for facial rejuvenation.

June 3, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Efficacy and safety of photothermal biomodulated platelet-rich plasma versus standard platelet-rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: a prospective split-face randomized study

RWRungsima Wanitphakdeedecha MOMa. Patricia Gertrude Camille Rojas Ollero WBWoramate Bhorntarakcharoen

Key Points

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of photothermal biomodulated PRP against standard PRP for facial rejuvenation.
Prospective, split-face, randomized design involving 28 Thai volunteers aged 30–60 years.
Participants received either PTBM-PRP or standard PRP injections three times at one-month intervals.
Evaluated skin characteristics, pigmentation, redness, pain perception, and biomechanical properties at follow-up visits.
PTBM-PRP showed significant reductions in fine lines and wrinkles compared to standard PRP (p = 0.041 to p < 0.001).
Similar improvements in pigmentation, redness, and biomechanical properties were observed for both treatments.
PTBM-PRP had favorable pain scores compared to PRP, especially at the third follow-up visit (p = 0.006).

Abstract

Abstract Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) regenerative properties are used to treat clinical manifestations of skin aging. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of photothermal biomodulated PRP (PTBM-PRP) compared to standard PRP for skin rejuvenation. Prospective, split-face, randomized study including Thai volunteers (30–60 years) with Fitzpatrick skin type III-IV and moderate severity photoaging or higher conducted at Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand). Face sides were randomized to receive intradermal autologous PTBM-PRP or PRP injections in three sessions at one-month intervals, with follow-up visits at one, three, and six months. PRP was preconditioned using the MCT System (Meta Cell Technology, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain) preset with the Exosomes program (467 nm continuous light 1 J/cm 2 , 37 °C, 10 min). We evaluated changes in skin surface characteristics, pigmentation, redness, and biomechanical properties (i.e., firmness, elasticity, and viscoelasticity), perceived facial improvement, and perceived pain. We included 28 volunteers (96.4% women) with a mean (SD) age of 40.82 (8.95) years and mostly skin type IV (67.86%). PTBM-PRP decreased fine lines maximum depth ( p = 0.041) and indentation index ( p = 0.005), folds maximum depth ( p = 0.032) and indentation index ( p < 0.001), and wrinkles maximum depth ( p = 0.024) and indentation index ( p = 0.041) in the periorbital area. PRP transiently decreased folds indentation index ( p = 0.008) and wrinkles maximum depth ( p = 0.0499) (PTBM-PRP vs. PRP wrinkles maximum depth p = 0.038 and indentation p = 0.018). Improvements in pigmentation, redness, and biomechanical properties were similar for both treatments. Patients perceived both treatment effects mostly as good or excellent improvement, with slightly favorable pain scores for PTBM-PRP vs. PRP, particularly at visit 3 ( p = 0.006). Compared to standard PRP, PTBM-preconditioned PRP for facial skin rejuvenation results in greater improvements in fine lines, folds, and wrinkles parameters, with sustained effects for more than six months, supporting a PTBM protocol use to enhance the regenerative capacity of PRP in skin rejuvenation.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper