Many people consider Active FX as one of the least invasive procedures used to treat superficial skin conditions such as age spots, fine lines and wrinkles and melasma. The technology of fractional ablative laser allows the production of visible results without causing significant trauma, leading to lower side effects and reduced downtime. Patients who are treated with Active FX usually show notable improvements in skin quality within a week's time. There are, however, other techniques that make the same claim, able to deliver results without imposing significant stress, opening up more options for people seeking skin rejuvenation.
Fraxel Restore
Of all the non-invasive alternatives, Fraxel Restore is perhaps the most comparable to Active FX. They are two variations within the laser resurfacing family. Both Fraxel Restore and Active FX have higher effectiveness in treating more superficial conditions like surface fine lines and wrinkles, dyschromia and mild scars. The difference is in the delivery of laser controlled damage. Instead of using a CO2 laser to attack the target site directly, the erbium lasers used for Fraxel Restore bypass the epithelium of the skin to detach the problem area from underneath, causing the superficial tissue to peel without apparent damage. This unique approach categorizes Fraxel Restore as a non-ablative technique, which makes it less invasive than Active FX, reducing post treatment risks and downtime to even lower.
The disadvantage of Fraxel Restore as compared to Active FX is it will take several sessions of Fraxel Restore to produce the result of a single Active FX, making the immediate results not as apparent as for Active FX.
Microdermabrasion
Microdermabrasion is the use of physical means to aid the removal of surface skin tissues. In this technique, a jet of pressurized microcrystals is used to gently polish the surface level of the skin, rubbing off the defected tissue from the epidermis. Many people claim that microdermabrasion is less invasive and more comfortable than Active FX. The procedure itself is not painful (don't need anesthetics as opposed to in Active FX), however, topical anesthesia is always used to dull the pain.
Recovery after microdermabrasion is also quicker than Active FX. Most people can resume back to normal life immediately in contrast to the 4 to 6 days of recovery needed after an Active FX treatment. In respect to risk factors, microdermabrasion is more favorable. Common side effects like minor redness and irritations will subside within a day unlike the week long duration of discomfort after an Active FX.
Microdermabrasion is completely mechanical, without subjecting patients to any extra radiation, making it safer for people undergoing chemotheraphy and other cancer treatments. There are some studies to suggest that CO2 laser can induce cancer recurrence, restricting them from getting an Active FX. The major setback of microdermabrasion is also the need for multiple treatment sessions. Although the total cost of an entire regimen of microdermabrasion is still lower than an average Active FX, dramatic results will not be immediate.
For methods that are less invasive than Active FX, longer time and repeated treatments are necessary for more desirable results. But, if you are more concerned about your level of comfort and risk exposures, perhaps the non-ablative treatments can offer you alternative solutions.
