Cargando…

Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode

The tattoos removal has become an issue upon spread of the tattooing practice worldwide and hindsight regrets. Lasers are typically used for the purpose, though some colours such as green are considered “recalcitrant” to the treatment. In the current investigation, we aim at determining the efficacy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cecchetti, Daniele, Bauer, Elvira Maria, Guerriero, Ettore, Sennato, Simona, Tagliatesta, Pietro, Tagliaferri, Marco, Cerri, Luca, Carbone, Marilena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8897463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07021-w
_version_ 1784663416546263040
author Cecchetti, Daniele
Bauer, Elvira Maria
Guerriero, Ettore
Sennato, Simona
Tagliatesta, Pietro
Tagliaferri, Marco
Cerri, Luca
Carbone, Marilena
author_facet Cecchetti, Daniele
Bauer, Elvira Maria
Guerriero, Ettore
Sennato, Simona
Tagliatesta, Pietro
Tagliaferri, Marco
Cerri, Luca
Carbone, Marilena
author_sort Cecchetti, Daniele
collection PubMed
description The tattoos removal has become an issue upon spread of the tattooing practice worldwide and hindsight regrets. Lasers are typically used for the purpose, though some colours such as green are considered “recalcitrant” to the treatment. In the current investigation, we aim at determining the efficacy of removal of a green ink water dispersion, using 5 laser treatments: Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode and Ruby nanosecond laser, keeping the total irradiated energy constant. The UV–Vis spectroscopy of the treated samples indicate that Nd:YAG picosecond laser is most effective, and the Ruby nanosecond laser is the least efficient. Fragment compounds generated from the pigment and siloxanes are common to all treatments, whereas hydrocarbon emerge by a larger amount upon Nd:YAG nanosecond treatment. Fibres are formed upon picosecond treatments and when operating in array mode, and lamellae are achieved by Ruby nanosecond laser treatment. Residual particles suspensions are very heterogeneous upon nanosecond treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8897463
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88974632022-03-08 Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode Cecchetti, Daniele Bauer, Elvira Maria Guerriero, Ettore Sennato, Simona Tagliatesta, Pietro Tagliaferri, Marco Cerri, Luca Carbone, Marilena Sci Rep Article The tattoos removal has become an issue upon spread of the tattooing practice worldwide and hindsight regrets. Lasers are typically used for the purpose, though some colours such as green are considered “recalcitrant” to the treatment. In the current investigation, we aim at determining the efficacy of removal of a green ink water dispersion, using 5 laser treatments: Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode and Ruby nanosecond laser, keeping the total irradiated energy constant. The UV–Vis spectroscopy of the treated samples indicate that Nd:YAG picosecond laser is most effective, and the Ruby nanosecond laser is the least efficient. Fragment compounds generated from the pigment and siloxanes are common to all treatments, whereas hydrocarbon emerge by a larger amount upon Nd:YAG nanosecond treatment. Fibres are formed upon picosecond treatments and when operating in array mode, and lamellae are achieved by Ruby nanosecond laser treatment. Residual particles suspensions are very heterogeneous upon nanosecond treatments. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8897463/ /pubmed/35246552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07021-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Cecchetti, Daniele
Bauer, Elvira Maria
Guerriero, Ettore
Sennato, Simona
Tagliatesta, Pietro
Tagliaferri, Marco
Cerri, Luca
Carbone, Marilena
Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title_full Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title_fullStr Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title_full_unstemmed Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title_short Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
title_sort comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with ruby, nd:yag nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8897463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07021-w
work_keys_str_mv AT cecchettidaniele comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT bauerelviramaria comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT guerrieroettore comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT sennatosimona comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT tagliatestapietro comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT tagliaferrimarco comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT cerriluca comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode
AT carbonemarilena comparativetreatmentsofagreentattooinkwithrubyndyagnanoandpicosecondlasersinnormalandarraymode