Question explored with the scientific record
Conversation so far
- 1 Can you safely remove 100% gold needles that look like susuk needles from your forehead without major surgery? In the subcutanous somewhere. In order to have ultherapy and fotona 5d. The Ct angiogram says they are beneath the scalp but haven't consulted radiology yet on it. + a private exchange
- 2 But if the ultherapy avoids the needles at the forehead (provided they are there) just to do the eyes, is it still possible as long as they are precisely mapped? Same with fotona 5d? + a private exchange
- 3 What kind of nerve damage can happen in the forehead? + a private exchange
- 4 What if it was done via endoscopic brow lift?
- 5 But if the needles are closer to the scalp, could a scalp incision not hide the scare more to remove them with one incision?
- 6 Ok so I would have a bunch of incision scars on my forehead, but could I then remove them with Dolphin MPS or something like that?
Answered on this page ↓
Ok so I would have a bunch of incision scars on my forehead, but could I then remove them with Dolphin MPS or something like that?
The short version: no device treatment erases a scar, and the evidence for Dolphin MPS on forehead scars simply does not exist.
What you are describing is a cosmetic procedure on tissue that has already been cut once. The retrieved studies show fractional CO2 laser can improve scar texture and appearance on the face, including the forehead, in small case reports [1]. One 46-year-old man with an 8 by 12 cm forehead scar saw papules disappear and texture improve after two passes of a fractional CO2 laser [1]. Another 18-year-old with a cheek scar improved similarly [1]. That is the closest match in this retrieval, and it is two patients, no control group, no long-term follow-up beyond two to three months [1].
Dolphin MPS is not in any of these records. Neither is ultherapy or Fotona. The retrieval contains nothing testing those devices on forehead scars, and nothing comparing them to laser, microneedling, or doing nothing. The burden of proof is on the device you are considering, and no evidence here meets it.
The mechanism matters. A scar is collagen that healed wrong. Devices that heat or puncture skin aim to trigger remodeling, and the one microneedling case report in this retrieval shows real histological change: epidermal thickness up about 52%, basal keratinocyte density up about 61%, collagen density up about 6% [2]. But that is a single subject, no control, and it measured tissue under a microscope, not whether a scar looks better [2]. Histological remodeling is not the same as cosmetic improvement.
The honest answer is that you are asking about a device with no published evidence for your exact problem, in a field where even the best-studied option, fractional CO2 laser, rests on two case reports with short follow-up [1]. The risk profile of an unstudied device on already-scarred forehead skin is unknown. That is not reassurance. That is the absence of data.
My call: do not spend money on Dolphin MPS for forehead scars; if you treat at all, fractional CO2 laser has the only evidence here, and even that is thin. Confidence: low, because the retrieval contains no study of Dolphin MPS and only two small cases of laser on facial scars.
Sources used 2
-
Fractional carbon dioxide laser for facial scarring due to windscreen glass shatter injury
Two male patients with facial scars from shattered car glass were treated with fractional CO2 laser (UltraPulse) resulting in disappearance of papules and improved scar texture and appearance, with procedural details and outcomes discussed.
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.13525 -
Preliminary Histological Evidence of Epidermal and DEJ Remodeling with Microneedling-Assisted Topical Exosome Therapy: A Single-Subject Case Report
In a single-subject case report, microneedling-assisted topical exosome therapy produced notable histological remodeling of the dermoepidermal junction and epidermal structures in aging human skin, with increased epidermal thickness, basal keratinocyte density, rete ridge densit…
DOI: 10.2147/ccid.s542022