Difference between the biologic and chronologic age as an individualized indicator for the skincare intensity selection: skin cell profile and age difference studies

Abstract Background The present research addresses the issue of skin aging and corresponding skin treatment individualization. Particular research question was on the development of a simplified criterion supporting patient-specific decisions about the necessity and intensity of skin treatment. Basi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yurij Sukhovei, Elena Kostolomova, Irina Unger, Andrey Koptyug, Denis Kaigorodov
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-12-01
Series:Biomedical Dermatology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41702-019-0051-1
Description
Summary:Abstract Background The present research addresses the issue of skin aging and corresponding skin treatment individualization. Particular research question was on the development of a simplified criterion supporting patient-specific decisions about the necessity and intensity of skin treatment. Basing on published results and a wide pool of our own experimental data, a hypothesis is formulated that a difference between biologic and chronologic age can be used as a powerful indicator of skin aging. Methods In the present paper, we report the results of studies with 80 volunteers between 15 and 65 years of age linking skin cell profile parameters to biologic and chronologic age. Biologic age was calculated using the empirical expressions based on the forced vital lung capacity, systolic blood pressure, urea concentration, and blood cholesterol level. Epidermis and derma cellular structures were studied using skin biopsy samples taken from the gluteal region. Results The present study supports the conclusion that biologic and chronologic age difference is changing in the progress of life. Our studies are showing that time point when calculated biologic age becomes equal to the chronologic one reflecting the onset of specific changes in the age dependencies of experimentally measured skin cell profile parameters. Thus, it is feasible that a difference between chronologic and individually assessed biologic age indeed reflects the process of skin aging. Conclusions With all reservations to the relatively small number of study participants, it seems feasible that a difference between biologic and chronologic age can be used as an indicator of skin aging. Additional research linking blood immune profile and skin topography to the difference of biologic and chronologic age (reported in the following paper) provides further support for the formulated hypotheses. So, a difference between calculated biologic age and chronologic age can be used as an individualized criterion supporting decisions on skin treatment strategies. Further research involving larger numbers of participants aimed at optimizing the expressions for calculating biologic age could lead to reliable and easily available express criterion supporting the decision for the individualized skin treatment.
ISSN:2398-8460