The Effectiveness of Epidermal Growth Factor Serum in Improve Facial Skin Hydration, Elasticity, Pigmentation, and Wrinkles.

Facial pigmentation was assessed using the Mexameter, which measures melanin content via light absorption and reflection. The device reports values on a scale from 0 to 999, where higher values represent greater melanin concentration. Measurements were collected at standardized facial sites at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. Higher scores indicate worse pigmentation.

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The analysis population for this study on facial skin pigmentation utilizing Mexameter measurements comprised a total of 28 initially recruited subjects. These participants were assessed at four distinct time points: day 0 (baseline), 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks. One subject loss follow-up at week 12 and week 16.

Skin elasticity was assessed using a Cutometer with the R2 parameter (Ua/Uf), which measures gross elasticity. R2 values range from 0 to 1.0, with higher values indicating better skin elasticity. Measurements were collected under standardized conditions at Baseline (Day 0), Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16

Population: 28 participants were assessed at Baseline and Week 8. One participant was lost to follow-up after Week 8, resulting in 27 participants at Weeks 12 and 16. Skin elasticity was measured using the R2 parameter from Cutometer readings at each time point.

Facial skin hydration was measured using a Corneometer, which provides readings in arbitrary units (a.u.). Measurements were taken at baseline (Day 0), Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16 under standardized environmental and procedural conditions to ensure reliability and accuracy. Higher values indicate better skin hydration, while lower values indicate increased dryness.

Time frame: 4 months (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16)

Population: The analysis population included 28 subjects initially recruited for this study. Participants were assessed at four time points: baseline (Day 0), Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. One participant was lost to follow-up after Week 12 and Week 16.

Visioscan measurements were taken at baseline, then at 8, 12, and 16 weeks by using a 4-grade percentage wrinkle improvement scale.

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The analysis population for this study on facial skin wrinkles using Visioscan included 28 subjects, assessed at Day 0 (baseline), Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. One subject dropped out at Week 12 and another at Week 16, leaving data from 27 participants for Weeks 12 and 16. Wrinkle improvement was assessed on a 4-grade scale: Grade 1 (0-25%) = slight, Grade 2 (25-50%) = moderate, Grade 3 (50-75%) = marked, Grade 4 (\>75%) = significant. Data are presented as mean grades with standard deviation.

Facial skin appearance was evaluated using the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (SGAIS), a 5-point scale where higher scores indicate greater improvement. Scores were assigned by two board-certified dermatologists who assessed photographs taken by the Visia-CR imaging system at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. SGAIS scoring definition: 1 = Worse, 2 = Mild improvement (\<25%), 3 = Moderate (25-49%), 4 = Much improved (50-74%), 5 = Very much improved (≥75%).

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The analysis population included 28 subjects assessed at baseline, 8, 12, and 16 weeks. One participant was lost to follow-up after week 12.

measured by tewameter on day 0, then at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The analysis population for this study on Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) utilizing Tewameter measurements comprised a total of 28 initially recruited subjects. These participants were assessed at four distinct time points: day 0 (baseline), 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks. One subject loss follow-up at week 12 and week 16.

Adverse events were systematically monitored at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks post-treatment initiation.

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The comprehensive evaluation encompassed a total of 28 subjects. One participant was lost to follow-up at the 12-week mark. Adverse events were systematically monitored through video calls at 2 and 4 weeks post-treatment initiation. On-site evaluations were conducted at 8, 12, and 16 weeks. At each time point, the number of participants analyzed was 28, with one participant lost to follow-up at the 12-week and 16-week evaluations.

Using a quartile grading system, (0 = unsatisfied), (1 = slightly satisfied), (2 = satisfied), and (3 = very satisfied)

Time frame: 4 months

Population: The assessment of participant satisfaction post-treatment involves all twenty-eight participants, with evaluations at 2, 3, and 4 months using a quartile grading system (0 = unsatisfied, 1 = slightly satisfied, 2 = satisfied, 3 = very satisfied). It is important to note that one subject was lost to follow-up since the 12-week mark.