SKIN CARE 65
Test site for instrumental assessments A predefined area on the side of the face was assessed to determine the effects of the treatment on skin lightening and skin moisturisation. The test site for the measurements was the left and right side of the face between the jawline and the ear. The test area for measurements was approximately 5cm x 5cm and centrally located.
Skin colour measurement Skin lightening was measured using a Chromameter CR400 (
www.konicaminolta.com). The Chromameter is a tristimulus colour analyser that measures the reflected colour according to the CIE 1976 L*a*b* (CIELAB) colour space values. The L*, a* and b* parameters were recorded following three repeated measurements at each test site.
Skin moisture measurements Skin surface moisturisation was measured using the Corneometer (Courage & Khazaka, GmbH). Five individual measurements were taken at different positions within each of the test sites.
Data analysis Canfield Visia image analysis The visible signs of ageing on the face, such as fine lines and wrinkles, age spots (solar lentigines), open pores and uneven skin tone were to be analysed. The Canfield Visia complexion analysis software gives data on the following equivalent parameters: Visible Sign; Canfield parameter; Canfield Definition (Table 1).
The data for UV Spots, Pores and Texture
were collected for the left and right-side images. These values were then analysed and
summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum values) calculated. As the data is on a ranking scale, a non-parametric method of analysis has been used to compare the pre-treatment (Week 0) and post treatment values at Week 4 and Week 10. As the data is a within volunteer
Table 3: UV spots A
Mean
Median SD
Min max
B Mean
Median SD
Min max
T0
291.4688 309.5
69.67342 82
370 T0
283.4 301.0 75.7 57.0
356.0 T10
297.9 310.0 75.8 60.0
402.0 T10
289.5 310.0 78.4 45.0
362.0
comparison, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test has been used. The analysis has been performed using Unistat for Windows v 6.0 (
www.unistat.com) in Excel overlay mode. A difference was considered significant if p < 0.05.
Photography – Canfield Visia images The before (Week 0) and after (Week 10) images for each side of the face and for each volunteer were randomly coded (A & B) and inserted into a PowerPoint presentation with one before and after image on each slide. Each slide was assessed in a blind manner by an experienced individual independent of photographic procedures or setting up of the image randomisation to ensure an unbiased assessment of the visible ageing signs.
Skin colour measurement The Chromameter parameters, L*, a* and b*, have been analysed for the left and right sides of the face and summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum values) have been calculated. As the data is on a ranking scale, a non-parametric method of analysis has been used to compare baseline (Week 0) and post treatment values at Week 4 and Week 10.
Corneometer data Five measurements were made at each test site and the mean of these values calculated and the means used in all subsequent analysis. Summary statistics
n Product A n Product B 61 59 57 55 53 baseline week10 Figure 4:Change in parameter skin lightness between baseline and week 10. November 2020
Table 4: Texture A
Mean
Median SD
Min max
B Mean
Median SD
Min max
(mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum values) were prepared over all volunteers for Corneometer values. In order to avoid any assumption about data distribution, a nonparametric method of analysis has been used to compare baseline (Week 0) and post treatment values at Week 4 and Week 10.
Canfield Visia image analysis parameters Canfield Visia Parameter: Pores There was a 13% increase in mean pores score for Product A between baseline and week 10, whereas for Product B, there was a 5% increase of mean pores score. The 13% increase for Product A was statistically significant (p=0.04) however, no other comparisons were statistically significant. The individual results of the image
analysis parameter Pores are summarised in Figure 1 and Table 2.
Canfield Visia Parameter: UV Spots There was a 2% increase in mean UV spots score for Product A between baseline and Week 10, whereas for Product B, there was a 3% increase of mean UV spot score. The increase observed with Product B was statistically significant (p=0.03) with no other comparisons achieving statistical significance. This statistical difference indicates the latent UV sensitive damage increased statistically significantly for the side of the face treated with Product B, whereas the side of the face treated with Product A was not statistically significantly changed during the study (Fig 2 and Table 3).
Canfield Visia Parameter: Texture There was an 18% and 16% increase in mean texture score between baseline and week 10, for Product A and Product B respectively. The differences were statistically significant (p<0.01) at each timepoint for Product A and Product B, suggesting the vehicle formulation had a similar effect on both sides of the face (Table 4 and Fig 3).
T0
1420.7 1389.5 690.3 298.0
3038.0 T0
1478.9 1368.5 765.6 327.0
3787.0 T10
1735.0 1616.0 661.0 616.0
3097.0 T10
1758.9 1644.0 692.8 450.0
3397.0 PERSONAL CARE ASIA PACIFIC
L* parameter
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
