Setareh Ameri; Saman Ahmad Nasrollahi; Aniseh Samadi; Fatemeh Amiri; Solmaz Ahmadvand; Somayeh Yadangi; Mahsa Fattahi; Marzieh Ehsani; Alireza Firooz
Abstract
Background: Hand hygiene plays a vital role in controlling pathogenic microorganisms’ transmission and maintaining the interaction between skin microbiota and biometric parameters. This study evaluated the effects of hand cleansers including alcoholic gel, alcoholic pad, antibacterial, and simple ...
Read More
Background: Hand hygiene plays a vital role in controlling pathogenic microorganisms’ transmission and maintaining the interaction between skin microbiota and biometric parameters. This study evaluated the effects of hand cleansers including alcoholic gel, alcoholic pad, antibacterial, and simple wipes on skin biometric parameters and microbiota.Methods: Samples were collected from the hands of 15 healthy office workers with a mean age of 37.70 ± 9.6 years. Then, the subjects were instructed to use cleansers in four following rounds, with a one-week washout period between the rounds. Sample collection was performed before, right after, and one hour after using the cleansers. Microbial isolates were investigated via standard microbiological techniques, and biometric measurements were made using the Cutometer® MPA 580. The obtained data were analyzed using the paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA.Results: Overall, there were no significant differences between cleansers in reducing the total aerobic microbial count (TAMC). Also, there was an approximate return to the initial count of resident microbiota one hour after using the alcoholic pad. A significant difference was observed in decreasing the Staphylococcus aureus count using antibacterial wipes rather than simple wipes. Simple wipes had the most increasing effect on transepidermalwater loss (TEWL), showing a significant difference with the alcoholic gel. Furthermore, alcoholic gel caused a greater pH decrease in comparison to other products.Conclusion: Alcoholic cleaners are more effective than antibacterial and simple wipes due to maintaining the skin’s biometric parameters. An additional advantage is that alcoholic pads can preserve the resident microbiota.
Saman Ahmad Nasrollahi; Taraneh Yazdanparast; Setareh Ameri; Shadi Marami Zonouz; Mansour i Nassiri-Kashan; Alireza Firooz
Volume 20, Issue 1 , 2017, , Pages 1-5
Abstract
Background: Various fillers have been used for the correction of nasolabial folds. This study investigated the efficacy and safety assessment of two hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers on moderate nasolabial folds. Methods: This study randomized 10 volunteers, aged 35 to 49 years, with moderate nasolabial folds. ...
Read More
Background: Various fillers have been used for the correction of nasolabial folds. This study investigated the efficacy and safety assessment of two hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers on moderate nasolabial folds. Methods: This study randomized 10 volunteers, aged 35 to 49 years, with moderate nasolabial folds. Volunteers received injections of HA A and HA B gels into the right or left skin folds. The volume and surface of nasolabial folds were analyzed using CSI computer software and high frequency ultrasonography of these folds before, and 2, 12, and 24 weeks after the injection. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS software version 20. P≤0.05 was considered significant. Results: Evaluation of the nasolabial folds before and after treatment showed significant reduction in volume of wrinkles 24 weeks after injection in both the HA gel A (-29.93±32%, P=0.022) and gel B (-23.60±26%, P=0.019). The surfaces of the wrinkles significantly decreased 24 weeks after injection of HA gel A (-29.90±31%, P=0.012) and gel B (-21.96±26%, P=0.026). Conclusion: These HA fillers provided a significant, long-lasting correction of moderate nasolabial folds. Overall, we observed no statistically significant differences in any of the measurements between the 2 gels. However, there were more observed changes made by gel A compared to gel B.