Does Light Therapy Work for Acne? What Blue Light, Red Light, PDT and IPL Can Do

Written by Dr Gerard Ee, MBBS (UK), MRCS (Edinburgh), PGDip Practical Dermatology (Cardiff) — sole author. Last medically reviewed and updated: 31 August 2026.

Light therapy improves mild-to-moderate acne in some patients, particularly where red and blue LED devices are used consistently, although it rarely replaces a complete acne treatment plan. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomised trials of at-home LED devices reported short-term reductions in both inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions [1]. Wavelength, dose and treatment schedule differed between those trials and most follow-up was brief, so long-term durability and the performance of any individual consumer device remain uncertain [1]. Photodynamic therapy, abbreviated to PDT, may benefit selected patients but produces more discomfort and a longer recovery [2]. Current acne guidelines continue to give stronger support to established topical and systemic treatments [3].

In my own practice light is used as an adjunct rather than as a universal substitute for medical acne treatment. Selection depends on acne severity, sebum production, pigmentation risk, pregnancy status, previous treatment and the patient's tolerance for medication and downtime. Where this article reports published evidence and where it reports my own practice is labelled throughout.

This article is written, reviewed and updated by Dr Gerard Ee, who is its sole author. The Clifford Clinic, where I practise, offers some of the treatments discussed here. Published evidence and my clinical preferences are identified separately throughout.

The published clinical literature was searched on 28 and 29 August 2026 across PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library, and every citation was verified against the source paper by its digital object identifier. Sources are ranked in descending order of weight, beginning with clinical guidelines, followed by Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials, individual randomised trials, and finally open-label or single-arm studies. Industry funding or an uncontrolled design is stated beside the result. Studies were selected for acne vulgaris outcomes measured as lesion counts or investigator assessment. Acne-scar studies are excluded here and are covered on my scar pages.

Why light was proposed for acne in the first place

Topical and oral medications produce a satisfactory result for most patients with acne. A sizeable minority, however, do not respond adequately, cannot tolerate the side effects, or wish to avoid antibiotics and isotretinoin. Light-based therapies were proposed for this group because they are non-invasive, generally well tolerated and free of systemic drug exposure. The sections below separate the proposed mechanism of each light source from what the trials have measured.

The mechanism of light-based therapy is not fully established. The proposed explanations turn on three elements, namely the light itself, photosensitisers, which are molecules that absorb light and are activated by it, and the oxidative stress those activated photosensitisers generate within the follicle.

Blue light and red light (LED) for acne

Cutibacterium acnes, formerly Propionibacterium acnes, is the bacterium most associated with acne and produces porphyrins that absorb light most strongly at approximately 410 nm, within the blue range. Blue light is therefore thought to activate these porphyrins, which generate reactive oxygen species that damage the bacterial cell. Red light activates porphyrins less efficiently but penetrates to a greater depth and is thought to act principally through an anti-inflammatory effect. A reduction in bacterial load and in inflammation would be expected to reduce breakouts. The magnitude and the durability of that effect in practice is the question the trials below address.

How blue light and red light differ

Blue light acts principally at the skin surface, where it activates porphyrins within Cutibacterium acnes. Red light penetrates more deeply and acts principally on inflammation rather than on the bacterium. Most randomised trials have combined the two wavelengths within a single device or a single protocol, so the published evidence does not establish either colour as superior when used alone [1]. Where a patient asks me to choose, the combination is treated as the default, and a single-wavelength device is reserved for a patient who already owns one.

What the trials show for blue and red light

Randomised trials support a short-term benefit for some red and blue LED devices in mild-to-moderate acne. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis in JAMA Dermatology pooled six randomised trials of at-home LED devices and reported significant short-term improvement in inflammatory lesions, in non-inflammatory lesions and in investigator assessment. Its authors concluded that red and blue home LED devices appear effective and can complement other acne treatments [1]. The stated limitations are heterogeneity between studies, short treatment periods, limited comparability between devices and an absence of long-term durability data [1]. An absence of durability data is not the same finding as an absence of durable benefit, and the distinction matters where a patient is deciding whether to persist with a device.

The 2016 Cochrane review, published before most of those trials, found that high-quality evidence for light therapies as a group was lacking and that firm conclusions could not be drawn [2]. The 2024 Cochrane overview of topical, light-based and complementary interventions did not alter that assessment [4]. The 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guideline gives strong recommendations to benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids and other medical treatments, and states that the evidence for laser and light-based procedures as a group is insufficient to support a recommendation [3]. In my own practice a home LED device is a reasonable adjunct to a topical retinoid and benzoyl peroxide, judged over eight to twelve weeks of consistent use. I do not present LED as a stand-alone treatment for moderate or severe acne.

Where light has been tested against a topical that patients can buy for themselves, it has not won. Among the trials in the Cochrane review, blue-red light was randomised against 5% benzoyl peroxide with no significant difference in participant-assessed success; blue light over eight sessions was randomised against 5% benzoyl peroxide with no significant difference in inflammatory or non-inflammatory lesion reduction at four weeks; and a split-face trial found that adding intense pulsed light to benzoyl peroxide gave no benefit over benzoyl peroxide alone [2]. Those trials are small and their light sources differ, so they do not settle the question. They are, though, the clearest reason I offer LED as an addition to a topical routine rather than as a way of avoiding one.

How to judge a home LED device

Consumer LED devices are sold with far less specification detail than the units used in trials, so a small number of published figures separate a device that can be assessed from one that cannot. A stated wavelength in nanometres is more informative than a colour name, because the blue devices in the trials clustered near 415 nm and the red devices near 630 nm. Irradiance, expressed in milliwatts per square centimetre, should be published alongside the treatment time, because those two figures together determine the delivered dose. The recommended session length and weekly frequency should be stated, as should eye protection. It is also worth establishing whether the manufacturer publishes clinical data on that specific device or relies on the general literature for the colour of light it emits, because those two claims are not equivalent. Regulatory clearance in the local market and the listed contraindications should be checked, particularly by patients taking a photosensitising medicine such as doxycycline or isotretinoin. I do not recommend a particular consumer mask, because ranking them would require a comparison methodology that the published evidence does not currently support.

IPL, pulsed dye laser (PDL), KTP and infrared lasers

Intense pulsed light, pulsed dye laser, potassium titanyl phosphate laser and infrared lasers are proposed to act by inhibiting Cutibacterium acnes and by heating the sebaceous gland sufficiently to reduce sebum output. Reduced sebum lowers the probability that the pilosebaceous unit becomes blocked by dead skin cells and bacteria, which is the combination that initiates a lesion.

The clearer role for the vascular devices, and for pulsed dye laser in particular, is in post-inflammatory redness. By targeting oxyhaemoglobin within dilated vessels they reduce the red marks that make healed acne continue to look active. I treat those marks with the Vbeam pulsed dye laser at 595 nm, on non-purpuric settings [12]. Where pigmentation rather than redness is the greater risk, a Q-switched 1064 nm Nd:YAG is the alternative: in the one post-acne-erythema split-face randomised trial it reduced lesion counts, the erythema index and clinician erythema scores with no pigmentary complications [11]. The evidence and the typical session numbers are set out on my Vbeam laser Singapore page and on my page covering red acne marks and post-inflammatory erythema, and are not repeated here.

For active inflammatory acne, a 2025 systematic review collected the studies of vascular lasers, namely 595 nm pulsed dye laser and related devices [5]. Those studies are small and their protocols vary, which in my reading supports a role for pulsed dye laser as an adjunct rather than as a stand-alone acne treatment. That is how I use it, treating the redness component alongside a treatment that reduces sebum.

Photodynamic therapy for acne, possible benefit with greater downtime and low-certainty evidence

Photodynamic therapy combines light with a photosensitising medicine, either aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate, applied to the skin before the light is delivered. The photosensitiser is taken up preferentially by the pilosebaceous units, so the light is intended to act on Cutibacterium acnes, on the sebaceous gland itself and on inflammation. That is the rationale. The evidence supports it less strongly than the rationale suggests.

The light source is selected by the treating doctor and ranges from blue or red light to intense pulsed light and non-pulsed broad-spectrum sources, according to what suits the individual patient. Some studies have found that blue light combined with aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate does not produce significantly better results than blue light used alone. Photodynamic therapy also carries the highest rate of adverse effects among the light treatments, including crusting of the skin and dyspigmentation.

The 2016 Cochrane review found that high-quality evidence was lacking for photodynamic therapy, as for the other light therapies, and that firm conclusions could not be drawn. In the pooled trials, methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy activated by red light produced lesion-count changes similar to those of placebo cream followed by red light, and the certainty of evidence for both agents was rated low [2]. Individual protocols have reported improvement, so a benefit in selected patients remains possible. It is accompanied by the most discomfort of the light treatments and by the highest rates of crusting, prolonged redness and, in darker Asian skin, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation [2, 6]. I consider photodynamic therapy only for patients who cannot take isotretinoin, who have discussed and declined the sebaceous-gland devices, and who accept the recovery period. Pigment-prone skin is primed before treatment.

How LED phototherapy and photodynamic therapy differ

The distinction that causes most confusion in clinic is a different one. Light treatment for active acne is not the same procedure as laser resurfacing for established acne scars. The first acts on bacteria, inflammation and sebum in skin that is still breaking out. The second remodels collagen in skin where the acne has already settled, and it is covered on my acne scar pages.

Photopneumatic devices

Photopneumatic devices combine broadband pulsed light with gentle suction delivered through the treatment tip. The suction is intended to draw sebum and debris out of the pore while the light acts on bacteria and inflammation. These devices were marketed as new when this article was first written in 2018. They have not since acquired the controlled-trial evidence that would alter the Cochrane assessment of light therapies as a group [2, 4].

Safety of light-based acne treatments

Light-based therapies are generally well tolerated, and the common adverse effects are minor, typically redness and swelling that settle spontaneously within a few hours. More significant effects, namely burns, blistering and changes in skin colour, can occur but are uncommon. The risk is reduced by treatment under appropriate medical supervision and by adherence to post-treatment instructions, in particular the avoidance of sun exposure to the treated area for the first 48 hours.

The safety consideration that matters most in Singapore is pigmentation. Any treatment that heats the skin, including intense pulsed light, pulsed dye laser and photodynamic therapy, can leave brown marks in Fitzpatrick III to V skin, and photoprotection afterwards is essential [6]. Low-output home LED devices were not associated with pigmentary change in the randomised trials reviewed [1].

Light therapy for acne in Fitzpatrick III to V (Asian) skin

Most of the LED trials enrolled lighter skin types, so the pigmentation question has to be answered from the wider device literature. Reviews of energy-based devices in skin of colour report that treatments acting through bulk heating or melanin absorption carry the highest risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, whereas low-fluence, non-ablative and sebum-selective approaches carry less [7, 8]. For photodynamic therapy specifically, dyspigmentation is a recognised adverse effect [2]. The Delphi consensus on acne-associated hyperpigmentation recommends controlling the acne first with a retinoid and benzoyl peroxide, then treating the pigment, with strict photoprotection throughout [6]; the laser options for established post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation have themselves been systematically reviewed [9]. In my Singapore practice, LED at consumer output carries a low pigmentary risk. Intense pulsed light, pulsed dye laser and photodynamic therapy are used with conservative settings and with test spots where the response is uncertain, supported by sunscreen and a pigment-lightening regimen before and after treatment. I avoid these devices altogether while a patient is tanned.

How I choose between light, medication and a sebaceous-gland device

My view is that Gold photothermal therapy, red light and blue light are all safe in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and Gold photothermal therapy is my treatment of choice. For blue and red light that view has direct support. The National Skin Centre review of acne treatment in pregnancy and lactation states that blue-violet or red light phototherapy may be used as monotherapy or in addition to topical and oral therapies [10]. For the laser component there is a systematic review of cutaneous laser therapy in pregnancy covering 22 publications and 380 pregnant women treated across all trimesters, and its conclusion covers the commonly used cutaneous lasers, the class that includes the 1064 nm Nd:YAG used in Gold photothermal therapy. Apart from one questionable case of premature rupture of membranes it found no cases of maternal or fetal morbidity or mortality, premature labour or identifiable fetal stress, and concluded that cutaneous laser treatment during pregnancy is safe for both mother and fetus [14]. A second systematic review reached the same conclusion for elective laser therapy [15]. Both note that the underlying literature is made up of case reports and series rather than randomised trials.

For the gold particles themselves the question that matters is whether they remain in the follicle or enter the circulation, and that has been measured. In the animal work published alongside the first clinical trial, cutaneous gold returned to baseline by one month after treatment and residual particles were undetectable at that point. The highest gold concentration in any organ after two treatments was 40.5 ng per gram, against an established safety threshold of 3,000 ng per gram, and blood counts, serum chemistry and organ histology were normal [16]. That animal work, like the first clinical trial it accompanied, was sponsored by the device manufacturer. No pregnant patient has been treated in any published trial of the technique, because pregnancy is an exclusion criterion in those trials. So no trial has reported harm in pregnancy, and it is worth being clear why. That is because pregnant women were never enrolled, not because the treatment has been tested in pregnancy and found safe. My position is a clinical judgement built on the evidence above and on the fact that the preparation is applied topically and activated by light rather than taken systemically. Azelaic acid and benzoyl peroxide remain the guideline-supported first-line options in pregnancy [10], and my acne and pregnancy page covers the options in full. Suitability is assessed individually before treatment begins.

When light therapy may not be enough

Where acne is moderate to severe, relapses quickly after treatment, or is driven by high sebum output, light therapy alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Three sebaceous-targeting treatments are then worth discussing, namely gold photothermal therapy, AGNES single-microneedle radiofrequency and the 1726 nm laser. These act on the sebaceous gland rather than on porphyrins or on inflammation, and their evidence bases differ from one another and from the light treatments reviewed here. The full comparison, covering mechanism, evidence, recovery, cost and patient selection, is set out on my page comparing AGNES, AviClear and Gold PTT.

The evidence, compared like with like

Results vary between patients, and a series of treatments is required before a satisfactory result is achieved. Because the causes of acne are multifactorial, a single modality rarely clears it, and a combination of treatments is usually adopted.

The table should be read by column rather than by the size of any single figure. A percentage reduction from baseline, a difference between trial arms and a responder rate at one year are different measurements drawn from studies of different design, and the largest number does not identify the best treatment. Among the light therapies reviewed here, the at-home LED evidence is the most recent and the most formally pooled, whereas the evidence for intense pulsed light and for photodynamic therapy remains inconclusive at guideline level [1, 2, 3]. None of these findings displaces conventional acne treatment, which the guideline continues to place first [3].

At-home LED devices in detail

Six randomised trials of at-home red and blue LED devices in mild-to-moderate acne were pooled in a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled analysis reported significant short-term improvement in inflammatory lesions, in non-inflammatory lesions and in investigator assessment [1]. Follow-up was short in most of the included trials. The principal limitations are heterogeneity of devices and doses, the brief treatment periods, and the absence of durability data. My interpretation is that a home device is worth using consistently as an adjunct, judged over eight to twelve weeks, and that it does not substitute for a treatment plan in moderate or severe disease.

Clinic-delivered LED in detail

Clinic-delivered blue and red LED has been studied in mild-to-moderate acne, largely in lighter skin types, against sham, no treatment or another light source. Individual trials report lesion-count reductions, but the pooled Cochrane assessment remained inconclusive and rated the evidence low quality [2, 4]. Devices and doses were heterogeneous and follow-up was short. I use clinic LED as an adjunct to a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide rather than as a stand-alone treatment.

Intense pulsed light, KTP and infrared in detail

Intense pulsed light, potassium titanyl phosphate and infrared lasers have been studied in mixed populations with varied protocols and comparators. No pooled effect estimate exists, and the 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guideline found the evidence for laser and light procedures as a group insufficient to support a recommendation [3]. The available studies are small trials and case series. I rarely use these devices for active acne.

Pulsed dye laser in detail

Pulsed dye laser at 595 nm has been studied in inflammatory acne and in post-acne redness, usually in split-face designs or against untreated skin, over two to four sessions. Small studies report reductions in lesion counts and in erythema, and a 2025 systematic review collected them [5]. Protocols vary and no large randomised trial exists. I use pulsed dye laser for the redness component, alongside a treatment that reduces sebum.

Photodynamic therapy in detail

Photodynamic therapy has been studied in moderate-to-severe acne over one to four sessions, against placebo cream with light or against light alone. In the pooled Cochrane analysis, methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy with red light performed similarly to placebo cream with red light, and the certainty of evidence was rated low [2]. Individual protocols have reported improvement. Discomfort, crusting and pigmentation risk are higher than for the other light treatments. I reserve it for selected patients.

Where light sits in the wider treatment plan

Light does not replace the foundation of treatment. A topical retinoid combined with benzoyl peroxide is the cornerstone for almost every patient [3]. Salicylic or glycolic peels are used as adjuncts for comedonal acne, although a systematic review of randomised trials rated those trials low to moderate in quality and could not pool them, and the 2024 guideline judged the evidence insufficient to recommend chemical peels [3, 13]. For moderate to severe disease the oral options are hormonal therapy, a short antibiotic course, or isotretinoin, which is set out on my isotretinoin Singapore page. Diet is a smaller factor than social media suggests, and the dairy and glycaemic-load evidence is on my diet and acne page.

Conclusion

Light-based therapies remain an attractive option because they avoid systemic drug exposure and carry a low risk of harm. No agreed protocol exists, however. The optimal light source, dose, delivery method and treatment interval have not been settled, and few trials compare light with conventional treatment [2, 4]. Those gaps have not closed since this article was first written in 2018.

I therefore use light where it is well suited to the clinical picture, as a consistent adjunct rather than as a primary treatment, and I discuss the sebaceous-gland devices with patients whose acne is moderate to severe once the guideline-supported medical options have been covered. Patients who would like an assessment of which combination suits their acne can book a consultation at The Clifford Clinic, where the acne treatment options are set out.

Frequently asked questions

Does blue light therapy work for acne?

For mild-to-moderate acne, randomised trials show a short-term benefit for some blue and red LED devices, with fewer inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions after several weeks of consistent use [1]. The trials cannot yet establish how long that benefit lasts, or whether one consumer device performs comparably to another. I recommend LED as a consistent adjunct to a topical retinoid and benzoyl peroxide rather than as a treatment on its own [3].

Are at-home LED masks worth buying for acne?

They can be, provided they are used consistently and prescribed treatment is maintained alongside them. The 2025 meta-analysis of six randomised trials found significant short-term improvement with home red and blue LED devices [1]. Because devices, doses and schedules varied and follow-up was short, a device with published settings is preferable, eight to twelve weeks is a reasonable period over which to judge it, and it should not be expected to replace a treatment plan for moderate or severe acne.

Is photodynamic therapy a proven acne treatment?

It is not proven in the sense of high-certainty evidence. The Cochrane review rated the evidence for both aminolevulinic acid and methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy as low certainty, and pooled methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy with red light performed similarly to placebo cream with red light [2]. Individual protocols have reported improvement, so photodynamic therapy may help selected patients. It carries more discomfort, crusting and pigmentation risk than the other light treatments, particularly in Asian skin.

Which acne treatments have the strongest evidence overall?

The 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guideline gives its strong recommendations to benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids and other medical treatments, and finds the evidence for laser and light procedures as a group insufficient to support a recommendation [3]. Among energy-based devices, the sebaceous-targeting treatments have their own separate evidence base, which is compared on my page covering AGNES, AviClear and Gold PTT. They are options to discuss after standard therapy rather than replacements for it.

Can light therapy cause pigmentation in Asian skin?

The heat-based options can. Intense pulsed light, pulsed dye laser and particularly photodynamic therapy can leave post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation in Fitzpatrick III to V skin, so conservative settings, test spots and strict sun protection are necessary, and pigment-prone skin is primed before treatment [6, 7]. Low-output home LED devices were not associated with pigmentary change in the randomised trials reviewed [1].

Is blue or red light better for treating acne?

Neither wavelength has been established as superior when used alone. Blue light acts at the surface on porphyrins within Cutibacterium acnes, whereas red light penetrates more deeply and acts mainly on inflammation. Most randomised trials combined the two, so the evidence describes the combination rather than either colour on its own [1].

What is the difference between LED therapy and photodynamic therapy?

Photodynamic therapy adds a photosensitising medicine, either aminolevulinic acid or methyl aminolevulinate, applied before the light. That makes the treatment more powerful and also more uncomfortable, with crusting and a higher pigmentation risk, and the Cochrane certainty rating for it remains low [2]. LED phototherapy uses light alone, requires far less recovery time, and has short-term randomised evidence in mild-to-moderate acne [1]. Light treatment for active acne should also not be confused with laser resurfacing for established acne scars, which is a separate procedure covered on my scar pages.

References

1. Ershadi S, Barbieri JS. At-home LED devices for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2025;161(5):552-555. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0019.
2. Barbaric J, Abbott R, Posadzki P, et al. Light therapies for acne. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:CD007917. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007917.pub2.
3. Reynolds RV, Yeung H, Cheng CE, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;90(5):1006.e1-1006.e30. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.017.
4. Yuan Y, Wang Y, Xia J, et al. Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;10:CD014918. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD014918.pub2.
5. Jafarzadeh A, Heidari S, Omid R, Goodarzi A. Systematic review of vascular lasers for the treatment of inflammatory active acne vulgaris. Lasers Med Sci. 2025;40(1):168. doi:10.1007/s10103-025-04429-4.
6. Taylor S, Elbuluk N, Grimes P, et al. Treatment recommendations for acne-associated hyperpigmentation: results of the Delphi consensus process and a literature review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89(2):316-323. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.02.053.
7. Tasneem S, Bayrouti A, MacIntyre D, et al. Use of energy-based devices for acne and sequelae in skin of color: a review of efficacy, safety, and practice considerations. Arch Dermatol Res. 2025;318(1). doi:10.1007/s00403-025-04500-8.
8. Syder NC, Chen A, Elbuluk N. Radiofrequency and radiofrequency microneedling in skin of color. Dermatol Surg. 2023;49(5):489-493. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003733.
9. Agbai O, Hamzavi I, Jagdeo J. Laser treatments for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(2):199-206. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4399.
10. Kong YL, Tey HL. Treatment of acne vulgaris during pregnancy and lactation. Drugs. 2013;73(8):779-787. doi:10.1007/s40265-013-0060-0.
11. Liu H, Zhang L, Gao Z, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of low-energy delicate pulsed light and Q-switched 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of post-acne erythema: a prospective randomized split-face study. Lasers Surg Med. 2025;57(9):716-725. doi:10.1002/lsm.70064.
12. Alam M, Voravutinon N, Warycha M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of nonpurpuragenic 595-nm pulsed dye laser and microsecond 1064-nm neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for treatment of diffuse facial erythema: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(3):438-443. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.04.015.
13. Chen X, Wang S, Yang M, Li L. Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e019607. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607.
14. Wilkerson EC, Van Acker MM, Bloom BS, Goldberg DJ. Utilization of laser therapy during pregnancy: a systematic review of the maternal and fetal effects reported from 1960 to 2017. Dermatol Surg. 2019;45(6):818-828. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001912
15. Allameh F, Javadi A, Dadkhahfar S, et al. A systematic review of elective laser therapy during pregnancy. J Lasers Med Sci. 2021;12:e50. doi:10.34172/jlms.2021.50
16. Paithankar DY, Sakamoto FH, Farinelli WA, et al. Acne treatment based on selective photothermolysis of sebaceous follicles with topically delivered light-absorbing gold microparticles. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(7):1727-1734. doi:10.1038/jid.2015.89. Study sponsored by the device manufacturer.