A systematic review of treatments for acne scarring. Part 1: Non-energy-based techniques

Abstract

[Formula: see text] Introduction: Acne is a common condition that can result in permanent scarring. Acne scars can be broken down into three categories: atrophic; hypertrophic; and keloidal. Atrophic scars can be further sub-classified into: ice pick; rolling; and boxcar. Objectives and Methods: We have performed a comprehensive literature search of the last ten years in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used treatments against post-acne scarring. Results: A total of 36 relevant articles were identified on the following interventions: subcision (n = 10), dermabrasion (n = 1), microneedling (n = 8), dermal fillers (n = 5), and chemical peeling (n = 12). Discussion: Improvement in the appearance of post-acne scarring following subcision is in the range of 10–100%. Microdermabrasion achieved the least significant results. A total of 27.3% patients did not achieve any benefit despite eight treatment sessions, and only 9.1% achieved good results. All patients treated with microneedling achieved some improvement in scar appearance in the range of 31–62%. Dermal fillers also led to favourable outcomes. In particular, treatment with PPMA led to improvement in 84% of patients. Utilising chemical peels, trichloroacetic acid (TCA) CROSS achieved >70% improvement in 73.3% of patients, whereas 20% glycolic acid did not lead to any improvement in 25%. Conclusion: Post-acne scarring is a common and challenging condition with no easy and definitive solution. The above interventions have been used with varying degrees of efficacy, each having both pros and cons. All have been deemed to be safe with few and transient adverse reactions. However, further trials with a larger number of patients are necessary in order to reach more concrete conclusions regarding their efficacy.