Advantages of Powered Implements for Facial Cleansing

pgbeautygroomingscience.com

Advantages of Powered Implements for Facial Cleansing

ADVANTAGES OF POWERED

IMPLEMENTS FOR FACIAL CLEANSING

COMPARED TO MANUAL CLEANSING

P2618

Brian Czetty B.S., Jeff Domsic Ph.D., Greg

Hillebrand Ph.D.

P&G Beauty & Grooming - Skin Care R&D

In collaboration with

P&G Microbiology Global Capability

Organization


Introduction

There is an ever increasing number of beauty and

grooming implements being promoted for at-home use.

In the United States, commercially available cleansing

implements utilize a number of different mechanisms,

including rotating, oscillating, vibrating, and stationary

brushes or cleansing pads.

However, there are few reports describing clinical data

demonstrating the therapeutic benefits claimed by

these implements and their impact on the skin's barrier.

For powered facial skin cleansing implements, there

are little clinical data proving the advantages that

implement-aided cleansing has over conventional,

manual cleansing.


Objectives

Using standardized methods, we have tested two

cleansing implements with a rotating and an oscillating

brush, and compared them to conventional manual skin

cleansing for make-up removal, stratum corneum

exfoliation, barrier function, effects on anaerobic

bacteria populations, and on stratum corneum

hydration when cleansing is followed with a topical

moisturizer.


Rotating and Oscillating Brush Heads Mechanism

Review

Rotating Brush

• Rotates counter-clockwise up

to 400 RPM

• 10 mm nylon bristles with

rounded tips

• Removable AA Batteries

Oscillating Brush

• Oscillates up to 300 oscillations

per second with moveable and

stationary bristles

• 10 mm nylon bristles

• In-chassis battery with a charger

cradle

Can create a pleasant sensation on the skin and are potential means to physical

desquamation and removal of dirt, oil, etc.


Technical Studies and Objectives

1. Make-Up Removal

– Evaluate cleansing efficacy of the cleansing implements

compared to manual cleansing

2. Stratum Corneum Exfoliation

– Measure stratum corneum exfoliation of the cleansing implements

via DHA exfoliation over four treatments.

3. Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL)

– Evaluate effects of a rotating brush on stratum corneum barrier

function

4. Stratum Corneum Hydration

– Evaluate effects of cleansing to skin hydration when a topical

moisturizer is applied after use

5. Cleansing Effects on Facial Bacteria Population

– Evaluate effects of a facial cleansing implement to facial bacterial

populations.


Study 1 - Make-up Removal Protocol

1) This was a blinded, randomized study enrolling

16 women, age 25-65.

2) Anhydrous make-up (Elizabeth Arden® Warm

Beige 08 Flawless Finish) was applied to 3X4-

cm test sites on the panelist’s forearm.

3) The sites were cleansed with the test treatment,

rinsed with tap water, and then swabbed with a

white cotton pad.

Test Treatment Legs:

1. Oscillating implement + cream cleanser

2. Oscillating implement + exfoliating cleanser

3. Rotating implement + exfoliating cleanser

4. Rotating implement + low pH cream cleanser

4) The pad was measured with the Minolta ®

CM2600d spectrophotometer and results are

reported as ΔE vs. a clean pad (lower values

indicate more cleaning).

Make-up forearm

prior to cleansing

5. Exfoliating cleanser alone

6. Water alone

Test pads to

be analyzed


Study 1 - Make-Up Removal – Key Results

• Exfoliating Cleanser alone had expected cleansing results and was

significantly better than water wash alone.

• Rotating and Oscillating implement had parity cleansing results regardless of

cleanser

Adjusted Delta E

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000

Multiple Cleansers for use with Rotating or Oscillating Implements

Oscillating

Implement +

Cream Cleanser

Oscillating

Implement +

Exfoliating

Cleanser

Rotating

Implement +

Exfoliating

Cleanser

Rotating

Implement + Low

pH Cream

Cleanser

Exfoliating

Cleanser Only

Make-up + Water


Study 2 - Stratum Corneum Exfoliation Protocol

1. This was a randomized, blinded study enrolling 19 women, ages 25-65.

2. 8% Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) solution was applied to 4x4-cm test sites on the

panelists’ forearms and allowed to stain the skin for 24 hours.

3. The test sites were then cleansed with the test treatment for 15 seconds and then

rinsed with tap water. Two hours later, b*-value was measured with the Minolta ®

CM2600d spectrophotometer and results are reported as Δb values vs. baseline.

• This cleansing process was repeated once a day for 4 days with all data reported

vs. baseline.

Treatments

• Rotating Brush (Olay® Professional Pro-X Advanced Cleansing System) used with Olay® Professional

Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal Cleanser (ERC)

• Oscillating Brush (Clarisonic® Pro Skincare System) used with Clarisonic Nourishing Care Cleanser®

• Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal Cleanser (ERC) alone

• Water Wash


Study 2 - Stratum Corneum Exfoliation – Key Results

• Each implement had significantly better exfoliation than the cleanser alone.

• The rotating and oscillating implement had the same exfoliation.

0

Change in b-Value From Baseline

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

A - Rotating Device Brush + ERC

B - Occilating Device Brush + NCC

C - ERC Only

D - Water Only

0 1 2 3 4

Day


Study 3 - Transepidermal Water Loss - TEWL

Protocol

1. This was a blinded, randomized study enrolling 16 women,

age 25-65.

2. Three 3X4 cm test sites were marked on the panelist’s volar

forearm

3. Test sites were washed for 15 seconds with the test treatment,

rinsed with tap water and patted dry.

4. 5 minutes after treatment transepidermal water loss (TEWL)

was measured using a ServomedEvaporimeter® (higher

values indicate more barrier damage)

Treatments

• Rotating Brush (Olay® Professional Pro-X Advanced Cleansing System)

used with Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal Cleanser (ERC)

• Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal Cleanser (ERC) alone

• Water Wash


Study 3 – Transepidemal Water Loss – Key Results

• TEWL was not increased as a result of using the rotating implement vs a

cleanser alone

• Given exfoliation data previously reported an oscillating implement is expected

to have similar results

5

TEWL

g/m 2 /h

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

No Treatment Cleanser Alone Rotating Brush +

Cleanser

Test Legs

More TEWL >>>>


Study 4 – Stratum Corneum Hydration

Protocol

1. This was a blinded, randomized study enrolling 16 women age 25-

65

2. Three 3X4 cm test sites were marked on the panelist’s outer calf

3. Test sites were washed for 15 seconds with test treatment, rinsed

with tap water and patted dry.

4. Immediately after cleansing 36μL of moisturizer (Olay®

Professional Pro-X Wrinkle Smoothing Cream) was applied to the

test sites.

5. One hour later test sites were analyzed for capacitance using a

Courage & Khazaka Corneometer®.

Treatments

• Rotating Brush (Olay® Professional Pro-X Advanced Cleansing

System) used with Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal

Cleanser (ERC)

• Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal Cleanser (ERC) alone

• Water Wash


Study 4 - Skin Hydration – Key Results

• The rotating implement had significantly better hydration than the cleanser alone when a

moisturizer is applied immediately after and measured at 1 hour after application

Hydration

Corneometer

85

80

75

70

65

60

60.74 c

79.29 b

82.47 a

More Hydration >>>>

55

50

Water Wash Cleanser Alone Rotating Brush + Cleanser

Test Legs

* Significance (p


Materials and Treatments – Study 5

Study 5 – Cleansing Effects on Facial Bacteria Population

• Blinded randomized split face study

• Women aged 25-65 without clinical acne; n=12

• 2-cm daily rotating test sites on panelists face to ensure no site was

repeated

• Sterile polyester swabs saturated with 1X phosphate buffered saline

and 0.1% Triton X-100

• Treatments

– Rotating Brush (Olay® Professional Pro-X Advanced Cleansing

System) used with Olay® Professional Pro-X Exfoliating Renewal

Cleanser (ERC)

– No Treatment

• Bacteria were enumerated on enriched tryptic soy agar (Anaerobe

Systems) plates and reported as viable anereobes for CFU/cm 2 of

skin.


Method to Measure Facial Bacterial Population

•12 women without acne enrolled in an 8 day split face study using the

Rotating Brush on one half of her face with no treatment on the other.

•Swabs were taken on both sides of the face with no treatment for the

first two days (Day -2 and -1) to establish a baseline

Treatment Schedule Relative to Initial Treatment (in days)

Swab Only Swab Only Treatment and Swab Treatment and Swab Treatment and Swab Swab Only

-2 -1 0 1 2 5

Baseline Treatment Period Regression

•In order to avoid swabbing the same place on a panelist’s face twice

technicians were instructed to follow a swabbing template.

•Swabs were plated and CFU counts were generated for anaerobic

bacteria.


Facial Bacteria Population Results

Results:

• Total viable anaerobic bacteria accessible to swabs decreased by nearly 1 log

after three treatments.

• Bacterial levels return to baseline after suspension of treatment

Mean Viable Anaerobes (CFU/cm 2)

10 5 A - Rotating Brush + ERC

10 4

10 3

10 2

D - Water Only

-2 0 2 4 6

Day

p


Overall Conclusions

• A cleansing implement with bristles has advantages over a cleanser alone.

Cleansing is superior regardless of cleanser form

• In our tests there is little technical difference between a rotating and

oscillating implement for cleansing and exfoliation benefits.

• The rotating brush implement was shown to help provide faster delivery of

topical moisturizers

– The lead hypothesis for increased hydration following use of the cleansing

implement is that penetration of hydrating ingredients is enhanced via exfoliation.

• The skin’s moisture barrier is not damaged by the exfoliation caused by

cleansing brushes.

– This indicates even exfoliation but not beyond what the skin’s surface can endure to

remain intact.

– Low irritation scores from a consumer study with the rotating implement provides

supporting evidence (data not shown)


Overall Conclusions – Cont.

• The cleansing mechanism(s) by which total viable anaerobic bacterial counts

decreased after three treatments is not known at this time. Hypotheses

include but are not limited to:

Cleansing may physically remove bacteria from the skin surface.

– Removal and/or change in production of biomaterial that may serve as nutrient sources

for the bacterial population

– Decrease in pore volumes, effectively reducing the size of the microbial environment in

the pores.

– Physiological response(s) towards the bacterial population that reduces the bacterial

loads.

• The conclusions drawn above support the existence of cleansing implements

as legitimate cleansing / anti-aging tool that are superior to manual cleansing.


This work was funded by P&G Beauty & Grooming

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines