الفهرس 
Introduction and Aim of WorkOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 162 |  |  |
| | | from | 162 | | |
Abstract
Cutaneous laser resurfacing represents a major advance in the treatment todamaged facial skin and atrophic scarring. With recent advances in laser ology, this procedure has become widely accepted as an effective means cial rejuvenation. Despite the prolonged recovery and side effect profile of
ive Co2 and Erbium: YAG lasers, no other treatment can yet match the I results they can achieve when used properly.
Proper patient selection for laser resurfacing is essential. Skin type ification systems may facilitate the choice of resurfacing modality, predict loperative dyschromia risks, organize an approach to photodamaged skin facilitate communications among physicians.
For properly selected patients, the clinical results achieved after laser urfacing are often excellent. The degree of clinical improvement may however ry according to the laser system used and the number of passes used.
Even with careful preoperative screening and patient preparation as well meticulous intraoperative technique, complications will at times be
In the present study we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and ide effects of both Erbium: YAG laser and C02 laser in atrophic facial scars. he present study included 60 patients complaining of atrophic facial scars lassified according to the cause of the scar into post-traumatic scars, post-acne scars and post-inflammatory scars. Patients were classified into two groups; group I: (30 patients) subjected to Erbium: YAG laser and group II: (30 patients) subjected to C02 laser facial resurfacing.
Each subject provided a full medical history, general examination, local ination, explanation of the procedure, degree of response, postoperative care and the possible complications and photodocumentaion.
In the present study we found that, laser skin resurfacing weather by Co2 rbium: YAG laser show positive correlation between the degree of c1inicai ovement and the degree of energy and number of passes used.
It was found that better results occurred in patients with skin types III and ~an with skin type V. Also good results observed with superficial scars than p scars, narrow scars than wide scars and with scars treated within the first r of its incidence than that treated after one year of its incidence. There was relation between the clinical outcomes and scar site or scar type.
By comparison between the two groups, we found that the mean energy d the mean number of passes required to achieve excellent and good results s more in group I than those in group II but the clinical improvement was more group II than that in group I.
The duration of reepithelialization following laser sessions took much time group II (8.8 ± 1.8) days than that in group I (6.6 ± 0.36) days, also resolution f post laser erythema took much time in group II (9.03 ± 4.2) weeks than that in group I (2.6 ± 1.03) weeks.
Group II showed good results with deep scars than in group I and more good results with wide lesions than with group I, also group II showed more good results than group I in resurfacing scars treated after the first year of its