Devices

These are the procedures carried out with a device. It is not a separate layer but a filtered view; every page here is also in the procedures list.

Evidence level

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Monopolar radiofrequency

써마지 (고주파)

We read four randomised trials of monopolar radiofrequency. All of them — including a multicentre study analysing 212 people — used another device as the control, and all of them concluded 'not inferior'. We found no trial comparing it against doing nothing.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Microfocused ultrasound

울쎄라 (집속초음파)

In a 2023 systematic review of 16 studies, brow lift measured 0.47–1.7 mm and submental area fell 26–45 mm². In the same data, 92% were classed as improved by the treating physician — but only 42% of patients said so themselves. The gap between those two numbers is the honest size of this procedure.

Early researchRoute · Device-based

Microwave energy device

온다 (마이크로웨이브)

The most widely cited one-year follow-up study of this procedure was retracted in January 2026 (Skin Res Technol 2026;32(1):e70317). What remains are uncontrolled series of 10 and 20 people and a retrospective comparison of 171. We found no randomised controlled trial at all.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Laser toning and picosecond toning

레이저 토닝 · 피코토닝

In a split-face trial pitting picosecond against Q-switched toning, there was no significant difference between them, and the melanin index did not improve significantly on either side. In a network meta-analysis of 39 studies and 1,394 participants, the top of the ranking was combination rather than laser alone, and second place went to oral tranexamic acid. Punctate leukoderma is a recognised complication.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Microneedle radiofrequency

포텐자 · 시크릿 (마이크로니들 고주파)

In a 30-person split-face trial for acne scars it was comparable to ablative fractional CO2 laser, and the CO2 side hurt more. But in a 20-person trial, alternating it with a non-ablative fractional laser was no better than the laser alone. A review of 16 studies and 481 patients called it 'likely effective' while noting that more randomised trials are needed to establish the right parameters.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Fractional laser (Fraxel, fractional CO2)

프락셀 · CO2 프락셔널

The randomised acne scar trials we read are mostly 'something new against fractional CO2', and they almost always end in 'no significant difference in scar score'. In a 2025 picosecond comparison, mean ECCA scores did not differ (P = 0.209), and the microneedle radiofrequency comparison was similar. But pigment and erythema measures rose significantly on the CO2 side.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

IPL (intense pulsed light)

IPL (아이피엘)

In a randomised trial following 227 people for two years, the control group received no treatment at all. Clearance of telangiectasia of 90% or more was reached by 66.36% with IPL against 0% in controls; total efficacy was 95.33% against 30.83%. In a photoaging trial, one side of the face was treated and the other left alone — and biopsy showed decreased melanin and increased collagen only on the treated side.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Microneedling (dermapen, dermaroller)

더마펜 · MTS (마이크로니들링)

In a 2021 review of nine randomised trials, microneedling was effective for atrophic acne scars both as monotherapy and in combination, and no serious adverse effects were reported in any study. And in a 60-person randomised trial, microneedling plus sequential 70% glycolic acid peels beat microneedling alone on both scar score and skin texture.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Laser hair removal

레이저 제모

In a left-to-right intrapatient trial of 30 people that counted hairs 12 months after the last treatment, the diode laser achieved 69.2% reduction and IPL 52.7% (P < .01). The diode hurt more. Another trial reported 90–94% reduction at 18 months. That the numbers diverge this much between studies is itself the state of the evidence.

Early researchRoute · Device-based

Exosome treatment

엑소좀 시술

In an investigator-blinded, split-face non-inferiority trial, both halves of the face received three sessions of radiofrequency microneedling, after which one side got PRP and the other got exosomes. Wrinkling, dyschromia, erythema and texture improved equally on both sides, and biopsies showed increased collagen I and glycosaminoglycans with no significant difference between the arms. But this design cannot separate what the device did from what the applied material did.

Early researchRoute · Device-based

LED phototherapy

LED 광치료

A 2018 Cochrane review gathered 71 randomised controlled trials (4,211 participants) of light-based treatments for acne. The median sample size was 31. Photodynamic therapy showed little or no difference against placebo, and yellow light, infrared, gold microparticles and pulsed dye laser as an add-on showed no clinically significant effects. One sham-controlled trial within that set, however, was positive.

Moderate evidenceRoute · Device-based

Vascular laser (pulsed dye laser)

브이빔 (혈관 레이저 · PDL)

A 2026 network meta-analysis gathered 25 randomised trials of lasers and energy-based devices for rosacea. The result was that radiofrequency microneedling beat pulsed dye laser (PDL) on patient satisfaction and erythema. But the authors also wrote that most studies carried unclear or high risk of bias.

Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.