When.com Web Search

  1. Ads

    related to: does fraxel really work

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Fraxel - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraxel

    Fraxel Restore Dual incorporates a combination of a 1,550nm erbium glass laser and an ablative 1,927nm thulium fiber laser. It is commonly used to treat wrinkles, photoaging, surgical scars, and acne scars. [3] Fraxel Repair uses an ablative 10,600nm-wavelength carbon-dioxide (CO 2) laser. This laser is the most aggressive among Fraxel lasers ...

  3. Lindsay Lohan Looks Amazing—We Asked Plastic Surgeons the ...

    www.aol.com/lindsay-lohan-looks-amazing-asked...

    Dr. Hoschander, however, does credit the improvement in Lindsay’s skin to in-office skin treatments, like Fraxel, Erbium, and/or CO2, as well as RF microneedling.

  4. What It’s Actually Like to Get Fraxel Laser Treatment - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/actually-fraxel-laser-treatment...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  5. Can A $500 Red Light Face Mask Really Improve Your Skin? Yes ...

    www.aol.com/500-red-light-face-mask-110000148.html

    One of the most powerful and effective forms of light is laser, which docs use to resurface skin (as in the case of Fraxel), remove unwanted hair, and treat breakouts (AviClear was the first anti ...

  6. Plastic surgery - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery

    Although media and advertising do play a large role in influencing many people's lives, such as by making people believe plastic surgery to be an acceptable course to change one's identity to their liking, [69] researchers believe that plastic surgery obsession is linked to psychological disorders such as body dysmorphic disorder. [70]

  7. ASEA (American company) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEA_(American_company)

    Similar conclusions were drawn by "Does It Really Work". [11] An updated article by Science Based Medicine in 2017 further reiterated the conclusions of Harriet Hall, stating that ASEA's "core claim makes no scientific sense", and that the company engages in "clearly deceptive" marketing practices.