Route · Device-based

Nitrogen plasma: there is a trial that left the other side alone — but it is 18 people

In an evaluator-blinded trial that treated one side of the eye area and left the other untouched, the treated side was better on wrinkle grade, instrument-measured wrinkle score and melanin index (P = 0.004, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). An untreated control is an uncommon condition in this layer. But it is 18 people. On hands it was similar to a Nd:YAG laser — with an uneven protocol: eight plasma sessions against three laser sessions.

Last checked Sep 28, 2026

Start here

What it is: A device that applies plasma, made by energising nitrogen gas, to the skin.
What it is used for: For wrinkles, laxity and uneven tone.
How it is said to work: It is said to deliver heat without removing the surface, so that a response happens beneath.

There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.

At a glance

Session length: 20–40 min
Pain: Painful
Downtime: 3–7 days
Sessions: 3–8 sessionsReported in a trialThe eye-area trial gave three sessions three weeks apart; the hand trial gave eight weekly sessions. In the hand trial the laser had three — that imbalance is the condition for reading 'similar'.
How long it lasts: Not applicable
Relative cost: Higher
How well established: Moderate evidence

“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.

Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.

This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.

Korean classification Being checkedThe regulatory class has not yet been confirmed against a primary document. It will be filled in once it is.

Nitrogen plasma is a device that applies plasma made by energising nitrogen gas to the skin. It is used for wrinkles, laxity and uneven tone.

First, about the name. The word 'plasma' appears in two places on this site.

this page — an energy device using nitrogen gas
PRP and PRF — your own blood, spun in a centrifuge

They are entirely different things that happen to share a word.

And here is why there is something worth putting on this page. The first trial treated one side of the eye area and left the other alone. Among device procedures, a design compared against doing nothing is not common. On this site that condition attaches to little else besides the sham-irradiation trial on long-pulsed Nd:YAG.

But it is 18 people. And the second trial's control is not nothing but another device, with a different number of sessions on each side. We set that out below.

This site does not deal in prices, clinics or reviews.

What is established

Moderate evidence

It was compared against an untouched other side, and the treated side was better

A 2019 trial at Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand. Prospective, randomised, controlled, evaluator-blinded.

18 volunteers took part, with a design that meets a condition uncommon in this layer.

One side of the eye area was treated and the other side was left alone.

three sessions at three-week intervals
14 weeks of follow-up
all 18 completed the study

Assessment was by photographs, instrument-measured wrinkle score (Visioscan), melanin index (Mexameter), patient satisfaction, side effects and pain score.

The results.

periorbital wrinkle grade (Lemperle scale) — better on the treated side (P = 0.004)
instrument wrinkle score (Visioscan SEw) — better on the treated side (P < 0.001)
melanin index (Mexameter) — better on the treated side (P < 0.001)
patient satisfaction — significantly higher for the treated side (P < 0.001)
short-term adverse effects — erythema, scaling, temporary hyperpigmentation, pruritus and dryness

Now how to read it.

First, there is an untreated control. What this site keeps regretting — no side left alone — does not apply here. The other side of the same person's eye area stayed as it was. Age, skin, sun exposure and daily life cancel out automatically.

Second, it was measured by instrument. Not only a grade assigned by eye but Visioscan and Mexameter values. So the endpoint is marked 'instrument'.

Third, the evaluator was blinded. But the participants knew which side had been treated. You know when plasma has been applied to you. So the P < 0.001 on satisfaction is a figure produced by people who knew. Do not read it with the same weight as the instrument values.

Fourth, 18 people. That is this page's largest limit. A within-person design is sensitive, but 18 is small.

Fifth, 14 weeks. From the last session it is shorter still. How long it lasts is not something this trial looked at.

Sixth, the abstract names no funder. It stays 'unclear'.

So it sits at 'moderate'. Good conditions — untreated control, instrument measurement, blinded evaluator — but 18 people, one trial, 14 weeks.

Randomised controlled trial in people · 18 participants · 14 weeks · Compared with no treatment · Funding not declared · Endpoint instrument measurement PMID 30146783

Moderate evidence

Similar to the laser — but plasma had eight sessions and the laser three

A 2022 trial at Shahid Beheshti University, Iran. A randomised controlled study splitting the two hands of one person.

25 patients with mild to moderate photodamage took part.

one hand — nitrogen plasma, eight weekly sessions (two passes)
the other hand — long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser, three monthly treatments (until erythema became obvious)

A blinded dermatologist scored improvement in wrinkles and dyschromia at one and two months after the first treatment and at one and three months after the last. Patient satisfaction and the skin's biomechanical characteristics (cutaneous resonance running time, melanin, transepidermal water loss, hydration) were also assessed.

The results.

wrinkles — plasma 49.09 ± 19.18%, laser 39.32 ± 18.21%. Both methods gave a similar, significant improvement (P < 0.05)
dyschromia — plasma 45.00 ± 26.32%, laser 30.62 ± 24.99%
resonance running time and melanin — both fell significantly with either method (P < 0.05)
transepidermal water loss — fell with plasma and rose with laser. Hydration rose with plasma and fell with laser.
the authors conclude that cold plasma is as effective and safe as long-pulsed Nd:YAG, with less discomfort and dryness during treatment

Now how to read it. Something here has to be looked at first.

First, the protocol is uneven. Plasma had eight sessions; the laser had three. The intervals differ too — weekly against monthly. 'Similar' must not be read as 'similar under the same conditions'. What this trial actually showed is that eight sessions came out similar to three. The abstract states this plainly, and this site carries it across.

Second, there is no untreated control. Both hands were treated. So this trial is a comparison between two methods. That differs from the first entry.

Third, the standard deviations are wide. 49.09 ± 19.18%. Which means the range of outcomes across people was broad. Looking only at the mean hides that range.

Fourth, the split on transepidermal water loss is interesting. It fell with plasma and rose with laser. But that is a measure of the state of the skin barrier, not a statement that wrinkles improved. It is on a different axis.

Fifth, 25 people, one trial. And the back of the hand. Facial results cannot be taken from this trial.

Sixth, the abstract names no funder.

So this entry also sits at 'moderate'. Good conditions — own control, blinded assessment — but the session counts do not match, there is no untreated arm, and it is 25 people.

Randomised controlled trial in people · 25 participants · 20 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 33420853

Known risks

Redness and scaling follow. The 2019 trial above lists erythema, scaling, temporary hyperpigmentation, pruritus and dryness as short-term effects.
Temporary hyperpigmentation matters more the darker the skin. The trial above was done in Thailand, and the paper itself says it chose lower energy with higher Fitzpatrick types in mind. Ask what settings will be used.
This is a device that delivers heat. Burns, blisters and scarring from them are possible.
How much it hurts depends a great deal on the settings. The 2022 trial recorded less discomfort than with the laser, but that changes as energy rises.
A period of sun avoidance is needed, because of the risk of pigmentation afterwards. See sunscreen alongside.
Cold sores can be reactivated. Say so in advance if you have a history.
The final judgement belongs with clinicians at a consultation.

What is not established

There is no basis on this page for writing a duration. The 2019 trial ran 14 weeks; the 2022 trial to three months after the last session.
A trial of the whole face is not on this page. The two above are the eye area and the back of the hand.
18 people and 25 people. Both are small.
A trial matching the number of sessions against a laser we did not find. The 2022 trial gave plasma eight and the laser three.
Devices and settings differ between manufacturers. Whether these results carry across to another device is unverified.
How common pigmentation is in darker skin, in numbers, is not on this page.
We have not yet opened the primary Korean regulatory classification, so it stays 'being verified'.

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

What this article relies on

PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16