摘要

Objectives: Primary objective - To compare the efficacy of 40% mandelic acid peel with 30% salicylic acid peel in South Indian patients suffering from mild‐to‐moderate facial acne vulgaris Secondary objective - To compare the safety of 40% mandelic acid peel with 30% salicylic acid peel in South Indian patients suffering from mild‐to‐moderate facial acne vulgaris. Introduction: Chemical Peel is a cosmetic procedure that is becoming a popular modality in treating acne vulgaris (AV). Mandelic acid (MA) is an upcoming peeling agent for AV due to its anti‐inflammatory and antibacterial traits. Hence, it is worthwhile to appraise this newer agent's effectiveness and safety profile and compare it with a more traditional and established peeling agent, salicylic acid (SA), in the treatment of AV. Materials / method: Study Population : Patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris (Grade 1 and Grade 2) in the age group of 15 to 45 years. Prospective comparative study SAMPLE SIZE: 100 (50 in each group) Inclusion Criteria • Male and Female patients (Age group 15 - 45 years) • Patients with mild to moderate acne (Grades I and II). • Patients with facial lesions only Exclusion Criteria • Pregnant and lactating women • History of hypersensitivity to peeling agents • Patients with severe acne vulgaris (Grades III and IV) • Patients with hypertrophic scars or keloids Results: Both agents showed almost similar ability in improving mild‐to‐moderate AV. Salicylic acid was found better in treating inflammatory lesions, while MA had the upper hand in treating non-inflammatory lesions. Overall, there was no notable variation between the two peels in changing MAS and percentage reduction in MAS. However, adverse effects were higher with SA peel. Conclusion: Conclusion: The 40% MA peel was equally effective as 30% SA peel in mild‐to‐moderate facial AV. However, safety profile and tolerability were better in the MA peel group than the SA peel group. Limitations - In our study there was no follow‐up after 12 weeks of treatment to find out the long-term efficacy as well as reoccurrence rate of acne vulgaris. Therefore, long‐term prospective studies, with a greater number of participants and with a follow‐up period of at least six months is needed to substantiate our result.