Red and near-infrared LEDs on wrinkles: a sham-controlled split-face trial
Researchers in Seoul wanted to know whether red light, near-infrared light or both could soften facial wrinkles, and whether any change could be seen under the microscope as well as in photos.
Short answer. One of the more carefully designed early trials: blinded, sham-controlled and backed by tissue samples. It supports red and near-infrared light for fine wrinkles, at clinic doses.
What they did
Seventy-six people with facial wrinkles were split into four groups. Each group had one half of the face treated with either 830 nm near-infrared light, 633 nm red light, both wavelengths, or a sham light that looked like treatment but was not meant to work.
Sessions ran twice a week for four weeks, followed by three months of check-ups. Neither participants nor assessors knew which light was being used. The team measured wrinkles with skin-surface mapping (profilometry), tested elasticity, and took small skin samples to look at collagen and inflammation markers.
What they found
All three real-light groups showed measurable wrinkle reductions compared with their starting point, up to 36%, and elasticity increases of up to 19%. Skin samples showed more collagen and elastic fibres and more active fibroblasts, the cells that build collagen.
No side effects were reported. The authors concluded that 830 nm and 633 nm LED light are an effective approach to skin rejuvenation.
What it cannot tell you
The biggest changes are reported against each person’s own baseline. The abstract does not say how large the difference was against the sham group, which is the comparison that matters most.
The light came from clinic panels, not a home mask, so the dose per session may differ from what any consumer device delivers.
In short
One of the more carefully designed early trials: blinded, sham-controlled and backed by tissue samples. It supports red and near-infrared light for fine wrinkles, at clinic doses.
Masks with these wavelengths
Eight of the 10 masks in the comparison list a wavelength in every band used here (red near 633 nm and near-infrared near 830 nm). They are examples, listed alphabetically, each with our specification page and the manufacturer’s own product page. They are not recommendations, and the links carry no affiliate parameters.
- CurrentBody Skin LED Mask Series 2633 · 830 · 1072 nm · CurrentBody product page
- CurrentBody Skin LED Face Mask Series 3415 · 532 · 590 · 633 · 830 · 1072 nm · CurrentBody product page
- Dr. Renú SpectraLift Advanced465 · 530 · 630–660 · 850 nm · Dr. Renú product page
- Nanoleaf LED Light Therapy Face Mask460 · 520/525 · 640 · 850 nm · Nanoleaf product page
- Omnilux Contour Face633 · 830 nm · Omnilux product page
- Shark CryoGlow FW312415 · 630 · 830 nm · Shark product page
- The Light Salon Boost LED Face Mask (Boost Advanced)633 · 830 nm · The Light Salon product page
- Therabody TheraFace Mask Glo415 · 633 · 830 nm · Therabody product page
These masks list one of the bands, but not all:
- Dr. Dennis Gross DRx SpectraLite FaceWare Pro415 · 630 nm · Dr. Dennis Gross product page
- Silk’n LED Face Mask 100463 · 592 · 633 nm · Silk’n product page
Matching a wavelength is not the same as matching the study. Dose, irradiance, session length and schedule also differ, and a mask’s reported output is not independently measured. See how dose works and home vs clinic doses.
This is a plain-English summary of the published abstract, written by LED Translated. It is not medical advice, and it does not mean any mask reproduces this study’s results. Read the original record on PubMed, and talk to a qualified clinician about your skin.