Page 216 - Chapter 3 - Laser/IPL Hair Removal

Chapter 3 – Fundamentals of Laser/IPL Hair Removal 2nd Edition
The second main difference is versatility. Most of the skin procedures we apply today are based on preferential absorption of the light energy. To achieve this we must target certain chromophores in the skin - melanin, haemoglobin, water etc. The absorption coefficients of these chromophores dictate which wavelengths we must use, to maximise the amount of energy absorbed.
IPLs offer a wide range of wavelengths, usually from around 400nm up to 1200nm. Using filters, we can choose which range of wavelengths to apply. This, therefore, means that an IPL can target all of the above chromophores and treat a wide range of skin conditions.
The lasers above are much more limited since they only generate one wavelength each.
Incidentally, we often see a lot of nonsense about lasers being more ‘direct’ or ‘penetrate deeper’ or ‘more efficient’. These are all nonsense claims, usually from laser salesmen trying to push a sale!
The reality is that IPLs are more difficult to learn to use properly. This has resulted in them having a bad reputation, but that’s mostly because their users don’t know how to get the best out of them.
It appears from this very short review that all three laser types can be very successful in hair removal, when used correctly. IPLs are also very good at removing hair, again, if used correctly. Their results suggest that higher fluences are required, in line with our own theoretical calculations.
Diode Lasers – ‘SHR/in-motion’ vs ‘Stamping’ Techniques
We looked at two studies which compared the conventional ‘stamping’ technique with the newer ‘SHR’ or ‘in-motion’ technique.
Figure 115 – A typical diode laser head
A report from Braun compared these two techniques – both used 810nm diodes, one with a fluence range 5 to 10 J/cm2 at a repetition rate of 10Hz, with the other system delivering a fluence range of 25 to 40 J/cm2, in single shots at hair on legs.
The ‘single pass/high fluence’ approach generated a success level of 86% while the SHR approach resulted in a 91% success level. They concluded that this was NOT statistically significant meaning that there was very little difference between these results.
________________________________________________________________________ 216 Chapter 3, Ed. 2.0 Laser/IPL Hair Removal
© The Laser-IPL Guys, 2025