ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative contribution of intrinsic aging vs lifestyle factors to facial skin age. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of a cohort. SETTING: Skin research institute. STUDY SUBJECTS: A cohort of 361 white women (age range, 18-80 years) with apparently healthy skin. MEASUREMENTS: Visual and tactile assessment of facial skin features. RESULTS: Twenty-four skin characteristics were used to build a skin age score (SAS). The relationship between the SAS and chronological age followed a linear model with 2 plateaus--1 before age 30 years and 1 after age 71 years. An analysis was performed to determine whether certain lifestyle habits known to have effects on skin aging were related to the discrepancies between chronological age and the SAS. Significant effects were identified for phototype, body mass index, menopausal status, degree of lifetime sun exposure, and number of years of cigarette smoking. However, these factors accounted for only 10% of the discrepancies. Moreover, most skin characteristics used reflected changes understood to represent intrinsic aging rather than photodamage or other extrinsic factors. CONCLUSIONS: An SAS can be generated from multiple discrete signs evaluated on facial skin and is an informative tool for quantifying skin aging. The SAS is influenced by factors already recognized to affect the aging phenotypes; however, factors related to the rate of intrinsic aging, presumably genetic in character, seem to play a larger role than previously suspected.
Subject(s)
Skin Aging/genetics , Skin Aging/physiology , Sunlight/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Life Style , Middle Aged , Physical Examination , Prospective Studies , Reference Values , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Sensitivity and Specificity , Skin Care/methods , Skin Physiological PhenomenaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the biophysical properties of different facial zones. METHODS: We investigated transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin temperature and sebum casual level (CL) on 90 adjacent test sites distributed on the forehead, cheeks and chin of five women. RESULTS: All three parameters showed a symmetrical distribution around the facial median line. Only minor variations of individual values were found within the forehead and the chin areas. In contrast, the cheeks exhibited a distinct gradient with highest values in the paranasal zones and lowest on the cheek bones for all of the three parameters. The mean values on both cheeks of a given individual were nearly identical, and the patterns within the two cheeks were superimposable. Both CL and skin temperature distributions pointed out a "T-zone" with highest values on the forehead, on the chin and on the median part of the cheek. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that biophysical skin properties differ considerably between different facial areas but that they follow a characteristic distribution.