In vivo evaluation of the effectiveness of biocellulose facial masks as active delivery systems to skin


Abstract

Background: In recent years, bacterial cellulose (BC), or biocellulose, a natural polymer synthesized by certain bacteria, has attracted great interest in dermatology and cosmetic applications. Several bioactive ingredients are currently loaded into BC masks. However, only a few studies have reported the effectiveness of such delivery systems.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on skin parameters of three biocellulose masks formulated to have different cosmetic effects (anti-aging, lifting, and cell renewal). In particular, skin moisturizing, skin color, skin viscoelastic properties, skin surface smoothness, wrinkle reduction, dermal homogeneity, and stratum corneum renewal were evaluated.

Materials and methods: The study involved 69 healthy Caucasian female volunteers between 25 and 64 years, who were divided into three different studies. Biocellulose facial masks were applied using the split-face method three times a week for 4-8 weeks depending on the study.

Results: The results obtained from this work highlight that biocellulose masks are very well tolerated. A significant decrease in skin roughness and wrinkle breadth, and an improvement in dermal homogeneity and firmness, was observed after 2 months of treatment with "anti-aging" masks. A significant improvement in skin firmness and elasticity was observed after 1 month of treatment with "lifting" masks. Furthermore, a 1-month treatment with "cell renewal" masks promoted the production of new skin cells through a mild exfoliating action.

Conclusions: This study highlights that biocellulose masks are effective delivery systems to successfully release into the skin several types of active compounds exerting many beneficial effects.

Keywords: bacterial cellulose; cosmetic facial mask; efficacy evaluation; in vivo study; tolerability evaluation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of the variation of the erythema index in the areas treated with anti‐aging biocellulose masks (ABM), lifting biocellulose masks (LBM), purifying and regenerating biocellulose masks (PRBM), and placebo biocellulose masks (PLBM). *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of the variation in stratum corneum water content (SCWC) and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the areas treated with ABM, LBM, PRBM, and PLBM. *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 3
Figure 3
Confidence intervals of the net active‐placebo effect. The area between the lower and upper bounds corresponds to the region of the acceptance of the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no difference between the active and placebo masks
Figure 4
Figure 4
Variation and statistical significance of average skin roughness (Ra) and maximal skin roughness (Rmax) in the areas treated with ABM and PLBM. *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 5
Figure 5
3D skin images of a forehead before treatment (left) and after 2?mo of treatment with ABM (right)
Figure 6
Figure 6
B‐mode ultrasound images of skin at T0 (A), after 12 applications of ABM (B), and at the end of the study after 24 applications of ABM (C). The epidermis and dermis are visible as echo‐rich (green) areas
Figure 7
Figure 7
Variation and statistical significance of dermis thickness obtained for all subjects in the areas treated with ABM and PLBM after 4?wk (T1) and 8?wk of treatment (T2). *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 8
Figure 8
Confidence intervals of the active‐placebo net effect. The area between the lower and upper bounds corresponds to the region of acceptance of the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no difference between the active and placebo masks
Figure 9
Figure 9
Variation and statistical significance of skin elasticity in the areas treated with LBM and PLBM. *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 10
Figure 10
Confidence intervals of the net active‐placebo effect. The area between the lower and upper bounds corresponds to the region of acceptance of the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no difference between the active and placebo masks
Figure 11
Figure 11
Variation and statistical significance of the protein content (PC) of total and single tape‐strips (Si) in the areas treated with PRBM and PLBM. *, P?<?0.05 is significant; **, P?<?0.01 is strongly significant; ***, P?<?0.001 is very strongly significant
Figure 12
Figure 12
Confidence intervals of the net active‐placebo effect for protein content (PC). The area between the lower and upper bounds corresponds to the region of acceptance of the null hypothesis, that is, that there is no difference between the active and placebo masks
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles