Why I prefer temporary Tricopigmentation(SMP) based on real patients I have seen

[quote]Its not just the size of the dot.

If you observe the pictures posted by CITnews and me, there are 2 more differences

  1. Color - the color in the picture by CITNEWS has turned bluish.

  2. Pigment diffusion - there is a diffusion of pigment in the skin between dots in picture posted by CITNEWS v/s the one posted by me.
    These are also important factors to keep in mind.

[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by ipod[/postedby]

Dr. Arvind, are you saying some ink turns bluish and some don’t? I thought they all do unless you use permanent ink.[/quote]

Yes Ipod,
Pigment quality varies with different practitioners.

  1. Some inks, (permanent ones as well),change color
  2. In some inks there is a diffusion of pigment in the skin between dots.

http://fusehair.com/hair-pigmentation/

“assume a number of maintenance sessions per year (usually one or two)”

Prices are almost impossible to find online but one BTT poster claimed 2000 pounds / 3400 US dollars for a norwood 7 sized SMP and once travel costs are factored in that price could be a lot higher. ()

I wonder if people are really going to properly maintain their SMP or just get the clinics glamor shot and quickly end up with a faded sub par result?

Following is video of a patient.
Details -

  1. He had a strip FUHT done by some plastic surgeon in 2010.
    He came to us for repair as the result was poor and the patient is a Norwood 6.

  2. We did Tricopigmentation (1 session) on the previous strip scar 2 days before this video was taken. Some small areas of the scar were deliberately left.

  3. Tricopigmentation on the scar was done just 10 days after 2950 scalp FUSE/fue grafts had been extracted.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7EiQ8Woq-Q&list=UUb6gGt4ie5yVPTfLWP42N6w&index=1

Goodmorning everyone,

This is a very important discussion post about Tricopigmentation.
This could be an opportunity for all users to know more about the technique and an opportunity for us to explain details about our technique.
A short introduction on scalp pigmentation gradual evolution during years:
It has been now two decades that scalp pigmentation exist.
The scalp pigmentation methodology and equipment evolution started first of all by using tattoo machines and then micropigmentation machine and tools.
Even Beauty Medical during the first years of treatment being performed used a general GE machine, semi permanent make-up machine.

After several treatment unsatisfactory results mostly the aesthetic side of the treatment final effect and after many tests to evaluate duration and stabilization of the pigment in the scalp tissue, Beauty Medical technical director achived the current methodology, which is still in continuous evolution.

Thanks to the help of a German engineer the technical director created a new Tricopigmentation machine, very rigid, which is able to give the practitioner a more precise results as you can see from the picture.

Details generated to the needle as the porosity to inoculate the same amount of pigment in each dot performed and to the handpiece allow to have as result very tiny dots that can recreate the hair bulb appropriately.

When we have decided to produce these types of changings in the system it was because something in the result was not satisfactory.

As underlined in this post sometimes the result is totally innatural with wide dots and different pigment color in the skin (which can occur with both permanent and semi-permanent pigment).
All treatments right after being performed are very pleasant, the final result need to be as well as good after the pigment stabilization too.

Pigments:
My studies on the field as thousand of scalps treated demostated gave my the possibility of reaching this temporary system while still maintaining the duration of the effect (approximately 1 year).

Low-quality pigments and inability of the practitioner during the procedure can lead to a change in the pigment: change of shape, widening irregular dots and change of color grey bluish.

Specifying the pigment change can happen due the components presented in the pigment (e.g. powder quality) and it could be accentuated by low ability in inoculating the pigment, different depth of the deposit in the skin.

Today we can guarantee important results tahks to years of experience and a guaranteed system if systematically followed.
It can occur that the Tricopigmentation result may be imperfect if one of the pillarsi s missing.

The pigmenti is composed by a powder part and a liquid part.

powder part wich is iron oxide, titanium bioxide
liquid part wich is water, alcohol, isopropyl and glycerine (coming from soya)

The components in the pigment goes first of all throughout micronization process wich allows to modify all different shapes of all powders by having all equal powders.
In this way our body, towards our immune system specifically thanks phagocitosys process can slowly eliminate the foreign body, wich are the pigment powders during time.

Secondly it goes trought another process wich incapsulate all powders in a sylicon sphere to keep the pigment covered and as little as possible to help the phagocitosys process.

Personally I use a mix of pigments that offer an unique color, the keratine color, wich I notice to be the color of the hair bulb when shaved.
This pigmenti is mixed at the moment before treatment procedure with a special stabilizer, thickeners and gelling agent for a more refined result which is the secret of the system.

The system includes:
machine and handpiece specifically for Tricopigmentation
needle, sharp, one point, porosity characteristic
pigments, temporary, micro powder
specific stabilizer
depth of the deposit
dot position, two techniques in two consequently days

The duration of the treatment and the number of sessions to be performed before reaching the resulting effect depends on the individual immune system, skin regeneration, scalp tissue, habits and external factors.

The temporary Tricopigmentation treatment is performed in three sessions:

1st and 2nd session in two days consequently 3rd session after 20-30 days from the date of the procedure.

Treatment resulting effect evolution:

The treatment will remain stable in great condition for an average period of 6 months from last treatment session. After 1 year from the last treatment session the result will be of about 60%.

Subsequently the resulting effect of the treatment will fade gradually untill optically disappeare withinin a period of 2 years.

The range can change from Patient to Patient depending on immune system, skin regeneration, scalp tissue, habits and external factors (sun, U.V. exposure, saltiness, chlorine and more).
Being the Tricopigmentation a reabsorbable treatment it will require annual touch ups (generally one or two yearly) to ensure constant result.

The number of sessions performed during years postpone the fading.
The operator will evaluate the annual number of treatment sessions according to treatment fading with the Patient.

Of great significance in order to reach a very natural and pleasant result is the hairline draw, treatment homogeneity and the harmony with existing hair.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. A’s Clinic[/postedby]

Second, it is, IMO, irresponsible to push scalp micropigmentation as an adjunct without definite scientific literature to back up its efficacy and the possible side effects.
[/quote]

I’d love to see the scientific research on where the micronised metal pigments actually go.

Are they small enough to travel into the brain ?

I did do a lot of research before putting my name behind this organization.
No.
Pigments do not go to the brain.
Seriously?! You believe that?

But yes, before you go for an MRI or CT scan, based on my opinion, please tell them that you have got a temporary pigmentation. All the pigments may not have gone. Just as with a regular tattoo. Even if they have, whats the harm in telling. Its just like if you have got a heart stent, you always tell before an MRI.
I would think of this as an extra precaution.

But these fears as a deterrent to the tricopigmentation? Not really.

Decide for yourself whether you want to go for fearmongering or some real research. Do it for yourself.

Regards,
Dr. A

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/about/news/tattoo-risk/?bnr

“Bradford Researchers have raised concerns about the dangers of some tattoo inks and their potential to cause illnesses, including cancers. The team are calling for more research after discovering evidence that nano-particles from the ink can leave the skin (most likely via its dense network of blood and lymphatic vessels) and can be transported to other organs of the body.”

http://apo.org.au/commentary/nanoparticles-tattoo-ink

[1] University of Bradford (2013) Can Tattoos Cause Harm? http://www.bradford.ac.uk/about/news/tattoo-risk/?bnr
External Links icon

[2] Laumann, A.E. & Derick, A.J. (2006) Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: A national data set, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 55(3):413-421, Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: A national data set - ScienceDirect
External Links icon

[3] Klügl, I. et al. (2010) Incidence of health problems associated with tattooed skin: a nation-wide survey in German-speaking countries, Dermatology, 221(1):43-50, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20215724
External Links icon

[4] Høgsberg, T. (2011) Tattoo inks in general usage contain nanoparticles, Br J Dermatol., 165(6):1210-1218, Tattoo inks in general usage contain nanoparticles - PubMed
External Links icon

[5] Baan, R. et al. (2006) Carcinogenicity of carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc, The Lancet Oncology, 7 (4):295-296, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(06)70651-9/fulltext
External Links icon

[6] Høgsberg, T. et al. (2013) Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content, Exp Dermatol. 22(7):464-469, Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content - PubMed
External Links icon

[7] Stone, V. et al. (2007) Air pollution, ultrafine and nanoparticle toxicology: cellular and molecular interactions, IEEE Trans Nanobioscience, 6(4):331-340, Air pollution, ultrafine and nanoparticle toxicology: cellular and molecular interactions - PubMed
External Links icon

[8] Høgsberg, T. et al. (2013) Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content, Exp Dermatol. 22(7):464-469, Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content - PubMed
External Links icon

[9] Engel, E. et al. (2010) Tattooing of skin results in transportation and light-induced decomposition of tattoo pigments - a first quantification in vivo using a mouse model, Exp Dermatol. 19(1):54-60, Tattooing of skin results in transportation and light-induced decomposition of tattoo pigments--a first quantification in vivo using a mouse model - PubMed
External Links icon

[10] The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Chemical Substances in Tattoo Ink: Survey of chemical substances in consumer products, http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2012/03/978-87-92779-87-8.pdf
External Links icon

[11] Tang, J. et al. (2009) Distribution, translocation and accumulation of silver nanoparticles in rats, J Nanosci Nanotechnol., 9(8):4924-4932, Distribution, translocation and accumulation of silver nanoparticles in rats - PubMed
External Links icon

[12] Regensburger J. et al. (2010) Tattoo inks contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that additionally generate deleterious singlet oxygen, Exp Dermatol. 19(8):e275-281, Tattoo inks contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that additionally generate deleterious singlet oxygen - PubMed
External Links icon

[13] BFR (2013) First International Conference on Tattoo Safety: BfR-Symposium, Berlin, June 6 – 7, 2013 http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/bfr-symposium-first-international-conference-on-tattoo-safety-abstracts.pdf
External Links icon

Dear ObamamanIsStevieDee,

Thank you for the links.
One of the reasons for starting this thread was to explain that all SMP is not the same.
Neither fearmongering nor blindly going to any tattoo parlour is correct.

At the start of this thread, this is what I started out with and stressed on the classification.

  1. Not all pigments are the same
  2. Not all pigments are processed in the same way
  3. Not all depth of pigmentation is same
  4. Not all pigmentation delivery systems are same

It took me 2 years to try to get all the answers from beauty medical. I approached them as a skeptic and when I was asking them all the things… they did not freak out. They gave the necessary proof.
However, as I said earlier, its not my intellectual property. There are somethings that they have to choose to disclose or not.

P.S. - Any Italians here! If you are really good at english too, please help in translating because the reply posted by Milena is a bit difficult to understand in its entirety by a person who knows only english

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]
Dear ObamamanIsStevieDee,

Thank you for the links.
[/quote]

Nanoparticles in sunscreen first got me thinking about the wisdom of being an early adopter of those products…

http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/nanoparticles-sunscreens-still-raising-safety-questions/

Thanks but I am still not clear where the pigments go, I mean it has to go somewhere for it to fade, correct?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Arvind[/postedby]
Dear ObamamanIsStevieDee,

Thank you for the links.

[postedby]Originally Posted by ObamamanIsStevieDee[/postedby]

Nanoparticles in sunscreen first got me thinking about the wisdom of being an early adopter of those products…

[/quote]

Yes, once again thanks for raising the discussion about SMP to a more scientific level.

You are correct about fears of any random unknown pigments entering the skin.

I take the liberty of explaining a few points from Milena Lardi’s reply above.

  1. Pigment ingredients - If you read the reply, they have mentioned all the ingredients and they come in disposable, one time use in sealed tubes with details upfront. So you know whether a particular ingredient is a possible harm.
    I love the part where they even mention that the glycerine is soya derived (not from animal origin), because some religions would not like that.

2.I understand the concerns of nano size particles being able to cross essential protective body barriers. Therefore, I refer again to Milena’s reply above. The pigments are micronized - in short they are small enough to be ingested by macrophages but not to small to bypass body’s essential protection barriers.

  1. The micronized pigments are then ensheated in a silicone layer (an extra precaution).

They disclosed more then these levels of safegaurds and studies, but as I said before, those are their intellectual property and for them to decide how much to disclose in public domain.

This reply is to draw your focus on specific points in Milena’s reply. Reading the reply I realized many readers may, because of language difference, miss out some of the points.

Regards,
Dr. A

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by chris[/postedby]
Thanks but I am still not clear where the pigments go, I mean it has to go somewhere for it to fade, correct?[/quote]

I am no expert when it comes to SMP but Milena Lardi seems to suggest that the process of Phagocytosis is responsible for the fading of the pigment.

Quote from Phagocytosis - Wikipedia :

In the immune system, phagocytosis is a major mechanism used to remove pathogens and cell debris. For example, when a macrophage ingests a pathogenic microorganism, the pathogen becomes trapped in a phagosome which then fuses with a lysosome to form a phagolysosome. Within the phagolysosome, enzymes and toxic peroxides digest the pathogen. Bacteria, dead tissue cells, and small mineral particles are all examples of objects that may be phagocytized.

(The following is reproduced from the poster BYRG from essentialdayspa forum and can be googled to find the original post as hairsite won’t allow a link)

Micronized vs. Nanosized

I’ve only ever seen these words used interchangeably with each other. However recently on here with the concern of Nanosized particles brought up, people have said that they have written companies and they told them that they don’t use Nanosized minerals but only Micronized minerals or something. What is the difference between the two? They are both particles extremely reduced in size. Is there any significant difference in the size of each type of particle?

“The US Patent Office has defined a nanomaterial as a material with one dimension less than 100 nm, or 0.1 um. Nanomaterials are generally in the 1-100 nm range and can be composed of many different base materials (carbon, silicon, and metals such as gold, cadmium, and selenium).”

Micronized titanium dioxide (40 nm) is currently being used in sunscreens and cosmetics as sun protection. The nm particles are transparent and do not give the cosmetics the white, chalky appearance that coarser preparations did. The nm particles have been found to penetrate into the stratum corneum and more deeply into hair follicles and sweat glands than um particles though they did not reach the epidermis layer and dermis layers (Laddeman et al., 1999). There is also a concern that nm titanium dioxide particles have higher photo-reactivity than coarser particles and may generate free radicals that can cause cell damage. Some manufacturers have addressed this issue by coating the particles to prevent free radical formation. The FDA has reviewed available information and determined that nm titanium dioxide particles are not a new ingredient but a specific grade of the original product (Luther, 2004).”

http://web.mit.edu/environment/ehs/topic/nanomaterial.html

“Consumer exposure to engineered nanoparticles presents another exposure route for these materials. Engineered nanoparticles are used in personal care products, ranging from cosmetics to sunscreens, where decreasing the size of active ingredients, typically pigments, yields better performance18, 19, 20. It is impossible to assess the quantities and types of nanoparticles in such products as such information is often protected from public disclosure by trade secrets. Moreover, the US Food and Drug Administration (Rockville, MD, USA) ruled in 1999 that for sunscreens, ‘micronized’ titania was not a new ingredient, thus providing little incentive for toxicological studies of particle additives21.”

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n10/full/nbt875.html;jsessionid=C19B4C2F618E843C4607305CC9D09E25#B18

So unless all those “only micronized” mineral companies are using micronized minerals larger then 100 nm, I guess they are just blowing smoke at us that it is any different then “nano” size particles.

To say I am confused is an understatement. Maybe we should just be asking these companies exactly what particle size they use. What NM size is the ingredient and forget what they care to call or label it as to confuse us. Should be over 100nm I guess?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by ObamamanIsStevieDee[/postedby]

To say I am confused is an understatement. Maybe we should just be asking these companies exactly what particle size they use. What NM size is the ingredient and forget what they care to call or label it as to confuse us. Should be over 100nm I guess?[/quote]

I never said you are confused. You are doing research. That is a good thing and I am thankful to you for that.

I agree also that it should be made mandatory for the companies to mention the particle size as they do the components. In future that will be a major point and not just in this field.

I do wish to point out though that 1 nanometer = 0.001micrometer or 10 angstroms. There is some misunderstanding of the measurement scales in the reply posted by you above.
Measurements are set in stone (so to say). 1000 meters make a kilometer. 100 centimeters make a meter. No one can just change measurements and set an amorphous latitude for them.

If some one calls 40 nanometers as a micron I would also be suspicious. Please let me know the source of your information.


The nm particles have been found to penetrate into the stratum corneum and more deeply into hair follicles and sweat glands than um particles though they did not reach the epidermis layer and dermis layers (Laddeman et al., 1999).

This is just another question we doctors should be asking ourselves because I believe a doctor must have posted this.

The thing you posted above, stated, says that a particular particle can reach the hair follicle which is 3 to 4 millimeter deep but can not reach 0.1mm epidermis. Don’t you find this contradictory.

I do never mind interacting with patients, but seriously! these are points you can see for yourself.
I am available nevertheless should you have any doubt/queries.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by ObamamanIsStevieDee[/postedby]
(The following is reproduced from the poster BYRG from essentialdayspa forum and can be googled to find the original post as hairsite won’t allow a link)

[/quote]

Sorry the link to the article should be ok as it’s not another hair forum Micronized vs. Nanosized

Unlike the shaven head appearance, I think there are other groups of people who can benefit from this.

  1. Female hair loss sufferers who do not want to shave their head for a hair transplant

  2. Males and females with diffuse thinning

  3. People with inadequate donor hair may prefer to go for a low density transplant coupled with trichopigmentation
    The above are some indications that have not been discussed much.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by chris[/postedby]
Thanks but I am still not clear where the pigments go, I mean it has to go somewhere for it to fade, correct?

[postedby]Originally Posted by HairSite[/postedby]

I am no expert when it comes to SMP but Milena Lardi seems to suggest that the process of Phagocytosis is responsible for the fading of the pigment.

Quote from Phagocytosis - Wikipedia :

In the immune system, phagocytosis is a major mechanism used to remove pathogens and cell debris. For example, when a macrophage ingests a pathogenic microorganism, the pathogen becomes trapped in a phagosome which then fuses with a lysosome to form a phagolysosome. Within the phagolysosome, enzymes and toxic peroxides digest the pathogen. Bacteria, dead tissue cells, and small mineral particles are all examples of objects that may be phagocytized.[/quote]

That is just a hypothesis.

$2,000 every three years for thirty years because ink fades? Suppose a man starts at age 29. Believe it or not when men reach 60, we still care about how we look. Re-inking over a thirty year period equals approximately 10 sessions. At $2,000 per session that of course is $20,000.

As a result of the Cotsarelis studies, I’m fairly certain there are far better treatments coming our way. Who knows, there could possibly be 3d printed hair stubs created from a patient’s own cells that will not cause an immune reaction when implanted into the scalp with a small “gaff” at the base. similar inorganic implants have been previously tried with disastrous results because of infection. Find a workaround for that and simulated hair could be the next big cosmetic breakthrough.

The contents of my posts are my opinions and not medical advice
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. Ask for Chuck

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by CITNews[/postedby]
$2,000 every three years for thirty years because ink fades? Suppose a man starts at age 29. Believe it or not when men reach 60, we still care about how we look. Re-inking over a thirty year period equals approximately 10 sessions. At $2,000 per session that of course is $20,000.

[/quote]

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by ObamamanIsStevieDee[/postedby]
http://fusehair.com/hair-pigmentation/

“assume a number of maintenance sessions per year (usually one or two)”

[/quote]

Hi Chuck, It’s even worse than that according to Dr Arvind’s own website which I believe does give an honest assessment of the sessions required for a cosmetically beneficial result.

On that basis, a thirty year period at $2,000 per session would cost between $60,000 and $120,000.

I can certainly understand how it presents an attractive proposition for any clinic :love: