Over the last decade, at-home intense pulsed light (IPL) or laser devices have become more advertised more and more. But are these devices effective and more importantly, are they safe?
Professional hair removal treatments create more consistent results with fewer risks from misuse, including hyperpigmentation, skin irritation, burns or eye injury.
“Convenience, affordability, and the appeal of do-it-yourself solutions drive interest in at-home hair removal devices,” explains Alana Van Der Schouw, Head of Education at Australian Skin Clinics.
“People want hair removal on their own schedule without visiting a clinic.”
Many at-home devices promote visible results, not total clearance, after an initial 12-week series, following a schedule that coincides with a person’s hair growth cycle. In-clinic treatments may take longer to produce visible results, but they tend to synchronise more effectively with the anagen phase of the hair growth cycle, creating optimal long-term outcomes.
However, at home devices have their limitations.
“At-home devices are less powerful than professional lasers and work slower,” says Alana. “They cannot guarantee permanent results or treat all skin types safely.”
At-home devices are convenient, but they lack the power, energy output, personalisation and efficiency that clinical devices possess. This can result in delayed progress, faster regrowth, inconsistent hair reduction and increased ongoing maintenance.
DIY users also sacrifice professional treatment planning, aftercare and risk minimisation. And therapists in clinic undergo training and work within a regulated industry, which plays a crucial role in managing contraindications, adverse reactions and treatment expectations.
Then there is the cost. At-home devices range from around $100 to nearly $1000 but are limited in what they can achieve. Without clinical treatment planning, it is almost impossible to determine whether even the most expensive device will work effectively on a person’s skin and hair type.
“At-home devices are convenient, but they lack the power, energy output, personalisation and efficiency that clinical devices possess.”
Read the full Professional Beauty article here.
