Raquel Sanabria-de la Torre, María Ceres-Muñoz, Carlota Pretel-Lara, T. Montero‐Vilchez, Salvador Arias-Santiago
{"title":"Microtopography and Barrier Function in Healthy Skin: Differences between Forearm, Cheek and Palm","authors":"Raquel Sanabria-de la Torre, María Ceres-Muñoz, Carlota Pretel-Lara, T. Montero‐Vilchez, Salvador Arias-Santiago","doi":"10.3390/cosmetics11010005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) Background: Skin barrier function resides mostly in the stratum corneum, which consists of a protein component, the corneocyte (bricks), which provides a scaffold for the second component, the extracellular matrix, consisting of multilayers of lipids (mortar). These two components closely interact and this could be the basis for the differences in the biophysical properties of the skin between anatomical regions. So, the aim of this study was to compare skin microstructural properties between body sites. (2) Methods: A comparative study was conducted that included healthy individuals without previous skin diseases. Skin barrier function parameters and microtopography parameters (smoothness, roughness, desquamation, wrinkles, surface, volume, contrast, variance, homogeneity, anisotropy, total cell count, flaking index, skin surface hardness, brightness, deformability and friction) were measured on the forearm, cheek and palm. (3) Results: 44 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 38.8 ± 15.0 years. Significant differences were found between body sites for 14 of the 15 parameters evaluated. Smoothness was higher on the forearm than on the cheek and palm (240.02 Sems vs. 348.16 vs. 408.19 Sems, p < 0.05). Hardness was higher on the palm than on the forearm and cheek (13.22 AU vs. 9.44 AU vs. 7.94 AU, p < 0.05). Moreover, we observed that sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, tobacco and/or alcohol use, influenced the parameters evaluated. (4) Conclusions: The differences in skin barrier function and microtopography between anatomical regions reflects the different structure of skin in each body part and could help to understand the influence of the sociodemographic characteristics on theses parameters. This information could be useful for comparison with pathological skin characteristics and for targeting new treatments.","PeriodicalId":10735,"journal":{"name":"Cosmetics","volume":"139 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cosmetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics11010005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
(1) Background: Skin barrier function resides mostly in the stratum corneum, which consists of a protein component, the corneocyte (bricks), which provides a scaffold for the second component, the extracellular matrix, consisting of multilayers of lipids (mortar). These two components closely interact and this could be the basis for the differences in the biophysical properties of the skin between anatomical regions. So, the aim of this study was to compare skin microstructural properties between body sites. (2) Methods: A comparative study was conducted that included healthy individuals without previous skin diseases. Skin barrier function parameters and microtopography parameters (smoothness, roughness, desquamation, wrinkles, surface, volume, contrast, variance, homogeneity, anisotropy, total cell count, flaking index, skin surface hardness, brightness, deformability and friction) were measured on the forearm, cheek and palm. (3) Results: 44 participants were included in this study, with a mean age of 38.8 ± 15.0 years. Significant differences were found between body sites for 14 of the 15 parameters evaluated. Smoothness was higher on the forearm than on the cheek and palm (240.02 Sems vs. 348.16 vs. 408.19 Sems, p < 0.05). Hardness was higher on the palm than on the forearm and cheek (13.22 AU vs. 9.44 AU vs. 7.94 AU, p < 0.05). Moreover, we observed that sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, tobacco and/or alcohol use, influenced the parameters evaluated. (4) Conclusions: The differences in skin barrier function and microtopography between anatomical regions reflects the different structure of skin in each body part and could help to understand the influence of the sociodemographic characteristics on theses parameters. This information could be useful for comparison with pathological skin characteristics and for targeting new treatments.
(1) 背景:皮肤的屏障功能主要取决于角质层,角质层由蛋白质成分--角质细胞(砖块)组成,它为第二种成分--细胞外基质(由多层脂质(灰泥)组成)提供了支架。这两种成分相互作用密切,这可能是不同解剖区域的皮肤生物物理特性存在差异的原因。因此,本研究的目的是比较不同身体部位的皮肤微观结构特性。(2)方法:研究对象为无皮肤病的健康人。测量了前臂、脸颊和手掌的皮肤屏障功能参数和微观结构参数(光滑度、粗糙度、脱屑、皱纹、表面、体积、对比度、方差、均匀性、各向异性、细胞总数、剥落指数、皮肤表面硬度、亮度、变形性和摩擦力)。 (3) 结果:本研究共纳入 44 名参与者,平均年龄为(38.8 ± 15.0)岁。在所评估的 15 项参数中,有 14 项在身体部位之间存在显著差异。前臂的光滑度高于脸颊和手掌(240.02 Sems vs. 348.16 vs. 408.19 Sems,p < 0.05)。手掌的硬度高于前臂和脸颊(13.22 AU vs. 9.44 AU vs. 7.94 AU,p < 0.05)。此外,我们还观察到,年龄、性别、吸烟和/或酗酒等社会人口特征也会影响评估参数。(4) 结论:不同解剖区域皮肤屏障功能和微地形图的差异反映了每个身体部位皮肤结构的不同,有助于了解社会人口特征对这些参数的影响。这些信息有助于与病理皮肤特征进行比较,并确定新的治疗方法。