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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |