Wortzman M S
Neutrogena Dermatologics, Neutrogena Corporation, Los Angeles, California.
Dermatol Clin. 1991 Jan;9(1):35-44.
Each person makes the decision of how best to care for his or her own skin. Among the prime concerns, especially for facial skin, is the type of dirt, debris, or make-up to be removed. In most cases, all products do an adequate job in the removal of dirt; if not, the washing techniques can be modified to accomplish the task at hand. What cannot be controlled are the adverse side effects inherent in the use of that product. These adverse properties include damages to the barrier function of the skin; increased susceptibility to environmental sources of irritation and sensitization; frank irritation responses, such as erythema and edema; and reduction of the cosmetic qualities of the skin, such as degree of moisture and smoothness. Part of the problem is that most of these changes are subtle, occurring slowly over time. Often, the association of these problems with the use of a particular facial cleansing regimen is overlooked. The typical woman uses as many as 10 to 15 facial cosmetic and cleansing products each day, making the identification of a problem even more difficult. It is important to identify the risks associated with individual products and with product categories in general. Although the identification of a safe group of products to use for facial cleansing is desirable, the results of this investigation indicate that there are no simple answers. It has been assumed that because moisturizing cream formulations are routinely safe and mild in general use, a cleansing product in the same general form would share these attributes. We can see from the results in Table 2 and Figures 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 that cleansing creams are not uniformly superior to cleansing bars in the key attributes that are used to evaluate mildness. In each evaluation there were individual cleansing creams that demonstrated statistically weaker performance than did cleansing bars in general. As a group, cleansing creams did well in the cosmetic categories of dryness and texture but surprisingly poorly in such indicators of clinical safety as erythema and TEWL. Further evaluation of the components of the facial-washing regimens proposed by the manufacturers of many of the cleansing-cream products involved the direct comparison of a cleansing cream against that same product used with an alcohol-based toning product. In all cases, the addition of alcohol-based products to the cleaning protocol reduced the cosmetic and clinical safety of the regimen (see Table 2 and Figures 3, 5, 7, and 9).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
每个人都要决定如何最好地护理自己的皮肤。在诸多主要关注点中,尤其是对于面部皮肤而言,要去除的污垢、碎屑或化妆品类型是其中之一。在大多数情况下,所有产品在去除污垢方面都能做得足够好;若不然,可以调整清洗技巧来完成手头的任务。而无法控制的是使用该产品所固有的不良副作用。这些不良特性包括对皮肤屏障功能的损害;对环境刺激源和致敏源的易感性增加;明显的刺激反应,如红斑和水肿;以及皮肤外观品质的下降,如水分含量和平滑度。部分问题在于,这些变化大多很细微,会随着时间缓慢发生。通常,这些问题与使用特定面部清洁方案之间的关联被忽视了。典型的女性每天使用多达10到15种面部化妆品和清洁产品,这使得识别问题变得更加困难。识别与单个产品以及一般产品类别相关的风险很重要。尽管确定一组用于面部清洁的安全产品是可取的,但这项调查结果表明没有简单的答案。一直以来人们认为,由于保湿霜配方在常规使用中通常是安全温和的,那么同样大致形式的清洁产品也会具备这些特性。从表2以及图2、3、5、7和9的结果中我们可以看出,在用于评估温和性的关键特性方面,清洁霜并不一律优于洁面皂。在每次评估中,都有个别清洁霜在统计学上表现出比一般洁面皂更弱的性能。总体而言,清洁霜在干燥和质地等外观类别方面表现良好,但在红斑和经表皮水分流失等临床安全性指标方面却出奇地差。对许多清洁霜产品制造商提出的面部清洗方案的成分进行进一步评估,涉及将一款清洁霜与搭配含酒精爽肤水使用的同款产品进行直接比较。在所有情况下,在清洁方案中添加含酒精产品都会降低该方案的外观和临床安全性(见表2以及图3、5、7和9)。(摘要截选至400字)