Is Fraxel better than ActiveFX for skin resurfacing?

If you ask this question to a physician who has Fraxel they usually will say Fraxel and if you ask this question to a physician who has Active FX they will respond Active FX.

The unbiased truth is the Deep FX and Active FX (which our office has) and the Fraxel Repair are very similar in efficacy within clinical trials. Deep FX and Fraxel Repair are the only two devices I am aware of than can penetrate at deeper levels than any other fractional CO2 devices.

HOWEVER, Deep FX is the ONLY ultrapulsed device on the market. Does that make a clinical difference? Maybe or maybe not; however, the delivery is more constant with ultrapulsed Deep FX. The Active FX spot size is larger and offers top layers to be treated while the Deep FX or Fraxel (repair) offers deeper collagen penetration, I believe very similar clincal results.

The difference between Deep FX and Fraxel Repair?

1. Deep FX is ultrapulsed and Fraxel Repair is superpulsed.
2. Fraxel Repair may require 2-3 passes of the laser over the skin being treated if the physician would like to increase the area being treated. Deep FX allows a physician to increase the "dots" or density in one pass without having to pass over the area again and again.

Let me add a couple more points.

• The Fraxel re:pair has microscopic zones that penetrate thru the skin - 1/10th the size of a human hair. The Active Fx uses a much larger spot size.

• The Active Fx doesn't get nearly as deep as the Fraxel re:pair. The Deep Fx is closer to the Fraxel re:pair, getting about 1mm in depth, but the re:pair gets 1.6mm.

All 3 lasers - Active Fx, Deep Fx, and Fraxel re:pair are CO2 lasers and CO2 will be the best for scars, wrinkles, tightening and usually require only one treatment. (I'm fairly certain my depth numbers are correct; sorry for the conflicting data.)