Comparison of cheek and forehead regions by bioengineering methods in women with different self‐reported “cosmetic skin types”

Abstract

Background/aims: Understanding structural and functional differences between facial areas is necessary for the formulation of cosmetics and dermatological preparations well tailored to the skin's biophysical characteristics. The objective of the present study was to compare biophysical parameters on malar and frontal facial areas of healthy women classified according to self‐reported cosmetic skin types. Methods: The study population comprised 253 women aged from 20 to 50 years who did not display any signs of dermatological disease. Women declared spontaneously their cosmetic skin type. Skin capacitance, sebum casual level, skin temperature, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin colour and relief were assessed on cheeks and forehead in a controlled environment. Results: All biophysical parameters showed statistically significant differences between the two zones. Mean a* chromametric values and TEWL values were significantly higher on cheeks. In contrast, mean b* chromametric values and sebum casual levels showed the highest values on the forehead. Moreover, skin capacitance, temperature, roughness and L.* chromametric value showed minor, while statistically significant, differences between the two zones. With marginal exceptions, the differences between the facial zones for each biophysical parameter remained statistically significant, irrespective of self‐reported skin type. Conclusion: Biophysical parameter mean values differ between frontal and malar zones regardless of self‐reported skin type. Except for the elevated sebum casual levels in “greasy” and “combined” skin, no single or combined biophysical characteristics could be linked to any of the self‐reported skin types. Furthermore our data confirm that in contrast to the common belief that “dry” skin is associated with reduced sebum production, sebum levels in women declaring to have “dry” skin and those declaring to have “normal” skin were not found to be different.

Expert opinion and review article: The timing of comedone extraction in the treatment of premenstrual acne – a proposed therapeutic approach

“…There is little consensus within the scientific community on skin-type definitions [33], but the combination skin type seems to be most common [34,35]. Women with oily skin are prone to negative perception of their skin type [36] but demonstrate better judgement in its evaluation [37].…”

Discovering Relationships between Skin Type and Life Style Using Data Mining Techniques: A Case Study of Korea

“…However, a larger quantity of sebum was observed in greasy and combined skin types than the others, which implies the significance of sebum production in the determination of the cosmetic skin type (Fur et al, 1999;Kumagai et al, 1985). In addition, dryness of the skin was confirmed to be unrelated to the quantity of skin surface lipids (Fur et al, 1999;Pierard, 1987;Rurangirwa et al, 1987).…”

“…However, a larger quantity of sebum was observed in greasy and combined skin types than the others, which implies the significance of sebum production in the determination of the cosmetic skin type (Fur et al, 1999;Kumagai et al, 1985). In addition, dryness of the skin was confirmed to be unrelated to the quantity of skin surface lipids (Fur et al, 1999;Pierard, 1987;Rurangirwa et al, 1987). Skin melanin, hemoglobin, and light scattering properties were quantitatively analyzed, and it was found that melanin is a major factor for the assessment of a particular type of skin, while the scattering properties provide information about the skin structure and morphology (Zonios et al, 2001).…”

“…Many other methods have been developed for skin typing. However, the typical skin typing method adopted in the cosmetic industry and its associated research areas, is the classification based on the sebum excretion rate (SER), which classifies skin types as normal, dry, oily/greasy, and combined (Fur et al, 1999;Kim et al, 2011). Skin types, especially the facial skin types, cannot be permanently fixed but does undergo changes according to the major intrinsic and extrinsic variables such as those in climate, stress, and menstrual status (Baumann, 2008).…”

“…According to the research findings in Fur et al (1999), there is no consistent criterion to distinguish the skin of Caucasian women into normal, dry, greasy, and combined skin types. However, a larger quantity of sebum was observed in greasy and combined skin types than the others, which implies the significance of sebum production in the determination of the cosmetic skin type (Fur et al, 1999;Kumagai et al, 1985).…”