1Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2Lynde Institute for Dermatology (Private Practice), Markham, ON, Canada
3Division of Dermatology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
Since the publication of the article “Hair removal practices: a literature review” by Kang CN, Shah M, Lynde C, Fleming P. Skin Therapy Lett. 2021 Sep-Oct;26(5):7-11, the authors have identified current literature that warrants changes to the information presented on the use of lasers and intense pulsed light for hair removal. Electrolysis is noted as the only permanent method of hair removal and that lasers are a temporary hair removal practice (Abstract, in the paragraph under Lasers, in the paragraph under Electrolysis, Table 1 under Lasers Permanency, and Conclusion). However, laser hair removal can in fact be permanent in some individuals especially with longer treatments, as noted in a recent article by Altunel CT, Kartal SP. Reconceptualizing the permanence of alexandrite laser hair removal results: a long-term follow-up study. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2020 Nov 16;22(6-8):271-4. doi: 10.1080/14764172.2021.1936067. Epub 2021 Jun 5. PMID: 34096438. Table 1 also states that lasers are “effective for thin vellus hairs, and white, grey, or red hairs” under Advantages but this should state lasers are “ineffective for thin vellus hairs, and white, grey, or red hairs” under Disadvantages, as stated in the paragraph under Lasers. Additionally, the efficacy of intense pulsed light for hair removal has been modified in Table 1 and in the 2nd paragraph under the section Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) System. IPL is less expensive than laser hair removal, however, is not as effective, as noted in a recent article by Vaidya T, Hohman MH, Kumar DD. Laser hair removal. [Updated 2021 Aug 26]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan. Moreover, although treatment duration may be shorter, IPL typically requires more treatment sessions to produce results.
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused. The online and PDF version of this article has been corrected.
Funding Sources: None
Conflict of interest:
Cindy Kang and Monica Shah have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Charles Lynde has acted as a principal investigator, speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Avillon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cipher, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GlenMark, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valeant. Patrick Fleming has received honorarium and/or consulting and/or advisory boards and/or speaking fees for AbbVie, Altius, Amgen, Aralez, Bausch Health, Cipher, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme and UCB.
Hair removal practices have evolved from adhering to social, cultural, and religious traditions to meeting aesthetic standards. Hair removal methods can be divided into two categories: 1) depilation, which involves removing the hair shaft and includes shaving and chemical depilatories, and 2) epilation, which involves removing the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb, and includes plucking, threading, waxing, sugaring, lasers, intense pulsed light system, electrolysis, and photodynamic therapy. Furthermore, an eflornithine hydrochloride 13.9% cream (Vaniqa®, neither an epilatory or depilatory technique), has been US FDA- and Health Canada-approved to slow the rate of facial hair growth and to be used in combination with other hair removal methods. Most methods are temporary except for electrolysis and laser therapy for some individuals, and each technique has advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficacy and adverse events. Importantly, most studies examining the efficacy of hair removal techniques are limited to darker hair and fairer skin, and further research is required especially for those with light-colored hair.
chemical depilatories, depilation, electrolysis, epilation, hair removal, laser hair removal, photodynamic therapy, plucking, shaving, sugaring, threading, Vaniqa, waxing
Hair removal methods fall under two categories of depilation and epilation, each with distinctive advantages, disadvantages, and adverse events (Table 1).1 Depilation removes the hair shaft and includes techniques such as shaving and chemical depilatories. Epilation removes the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb, and includes techniques such as plucking, threading, waxing, sugaring, lasers, intense pulsed light system (IPL), electrolysis, and photodynamic therapy (PDT).1 In the 2000s, eflornithine hydrochloride cream 13.9% (Vaniqa®) was US FDA and Health Canada approved. Topical eflornithine is not considered an epilatory or depilatory technique but slows the rate of facial hair growth when used in conjunction with other methods.2
|Hair Removal Method||Advantages||Disadvantages||Adverse Events||Permanency|
|Intense pulsed light system||Temporary|
|Eflornithine hydrochloride 13.9% cream||Temporary|
Table 1: Hair removal methods – advantages, disadvantages, adverse events, and permanency
Hair Removal Methods
Shaving is a cost-efficient and popular technique for male facial hair and female underarm and leg hair removal.1,3 The two methods include: 1) wet shaving with a safety razor and 2) dry shaving with an electric razor.1,3 The first razors used in the 17th century had straight, fixed blades made of tempered steel which were dangerous to use and required regular maintenance (honing and stropping). In 1903, the revolutionary King Camp Gillette T-shape razor was introduced with the first double-edged disposable blade which did not require honing and stropping, but still needed direct handling for blade replacement. In the 1920s, the disposable injector blade was introduced, a safer and more convenient method without direct handling. In 1931, the razor blade was again revolutionized by the electric razor blade, which was costlier, but provided enhanced safety (the blade never directly touched the skin) and convenience (long-lasting and eliminated the need for shaving cream).3,4 Finally, in 1970, hoe-shaped safety razors with disposable cartridges were launched, and in 1975, the disposable razor was introduced. Both were safe to use, inexpensive, and convenient, with the disposable razor the most convenient of all models.5
Shaving (wet or dry) does not interrupt the anagen phase and, therefore, is a temporary hair removal method that necessitates frequent treatment.1,6 Shaving is convenient and inexpensive, but may cause irritation, skin abrasions, and pseudofolliculitis.1,7 Moreover, shaving does not change hair thickness or growth rate and leaves a blunt tip that appears to be thicker than uncut hair;3 thus, it is uncommon for facial hair removal in females.1
Chemical depilatories are made as powders, pastes, creams, or lotions,1,6,8 and used for the legs, bikini area, and face.3 Examples include detergents, hair-shaft-swelling agents, adhesives, pH adjusters, and bond-breaking agents, which disrupt disulfide bonds within keratin and provide temporary hair removal.3 The most common chemical depilatories are substituted mercaptans, 2% to 10% thioglycolates, mixed with 2% to 6% of sodium hydroxide or calcium hydroxide to increase pH.3,6,8 Sulfide depilatories and sodium hydroxide depilatories are unpopular as they cause greater irritant dermatitis and skin damage.3 Depilatories are applied to hairs for 3 to 15 minutes to dissolve the hair shaft, and are then washed off with soap and water.6,8
While chemical depilatories are easy to use, painless, have a slower regrowth than shaving, and do not result in stiffness of hairs post-treatment,3 they have unpleasant odors and may cause irritant contact dermatitis due to the alkalinity and allergic contact dermatitis due to fragrances.3,7 Thus, less than 1% of patients find facial application tolerable.7 Moreover, chemical depilatories are less effective in removing darkly pigmented and coarse hair.3
Plucking with tweezers temporarily removes hairs in small areas, and is most effective at removing terminal as opposed to vellus hairs, with the latter tending to break near the skin surface.1,3 Plucking is simple, inexpensive, causes minimal skin damage, and affords a longer regrowth period (2 to 12 weeks).3 However, plucking does not alter hair growth rate unless hairs are in the anagen phase, and can be a tedious process, making it impractical for use over larger areas.1 Plucking can cause discomfort or pain, and its efficacy is dependent on user tolerance and technique.1 Other drawbacks include folliculitis, follicular distortion, hyperpigmentation, erythema, and scarring.6-8
Threading involves the use of a twisted loop of cotton thread, with ends held by hand and teeth,3 that is pressed against the skin to trap and pull hairs.1,6 Threading is used in men to remove cheek, ear, and forehead hairs, and in women to remove facial hair.1,3, Threading is a temporary hair removal technique widely practiced in the Middle East and dates back to antiquity, also known as fatlah in Egypt, that has gained popularity in Western cultures due to its precision in shaping eyebrows.1 Threading, however, can be painful, tedious, and typically requires an esthetician with expertise.1
Waxing is a popular, temporary hair removal method resulting in hair-free skin for 2 to 6 weeks depending on the individual’s hair growth rate and body site.1,3,7 Waxing is commonly used for larger areas.9 Wax is composed of beeswax and rosin with additives, essential oils, chemicals, and preservatives. Hot wax is preferred over cold wax especially in beauty salons9 as the heat dilates the follicular opening to facilitate hair removal.1,3,7 Once the wax cools and hardens, the strip is removed quickly in the direction opposite of hair growth.1,9
Waxing removes both vellus and terminal hairs in large areas, and is longer-lasting than shaving or chemical depilatories as hairs are removed from the bulb.1,3 Repeated waxing can cause follicular trauma and reduce hair regrowth over time.7,9 Other adverse events include folliculitis, thermal injury, skin irritation, scars,7,9 and allergic reactions to the additives.1,7 Patients using systemic retinoids are advised not to wax due to increased risk of scarring.
Sugaring is an ancient hair removal technique used in the Middle East and Egypt1 involving a paste composed of sugar, lemon juice, and water10 applied to skin in the direction of hair growth, then removed in the opposite direction with cloth.10 Sugaring has a similar application to waxing, but may remove shorter hairs (1/16 inch versus ¼ inch) as water-based pastes can more easily penetrate follicles.10 Moreover, sugaring is safe (utilizes natural ingredients), cost-effective, hydrating, painless, and can be used for larger areas,7 and reduces the risk of skin redness, trauma, and scarring compared to shaving or hot waxing.10 However, sugaring may cause skin irritation and allergic reactions1 and can only remove hairs of sufficient length.
Laser hair removal can be permanent for some individuals,11 and involves selective photothermolysis that emits a light at a specific wavelength (nm), pulse duration, and fluence, causing thermal injury without damaging the skin.1,12 Light is either directly absorbed by melanin within the hair bulb and shaft6 or by an exogenous chromophore applied topically then absorbed by the follicle.1,6,12 Lasers are more effective when the pigmented hair shaft is intact; thus, plucking and waxing are discouraged, whereas depilation (e.g., shaving) is recommended pretreatment.1,12
Laser types include the ruby laser (694 nm),1,6,13 diode laser (800 nm),1,6,13-21 alexandrite laser (795 nm),1,18,22,23 and neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser (1064 nm),6,12,24,25 and efficacy depends on laser fluence, spot size, number of treatments and individual factors (e.g., skin type, hair type and hormonal status).26 Lasers work best for dark, thick terminal hairs, light/fair skin, and a normal hormonal status, but are ineffective for thin vellus hairs, and white, grey, or red hairs.26 Longer wavelengths reduce epidermal damage due to poor absorption and are therefore safe and effective in darker skin types. Cooling devices should also be used to reduce skin damage.16 Adverse events include immediate erythema,13edema, first- and second- degree burns,19,20 folliculitis,22,23 skin damage, pigmentation changes, blisters, and crust formation, and are more likely to occur in darker skin types [Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) III to VI].6,24
Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) System
The IPL system is a non-laser source of polychromatic light (550 nm to 1200 nm)6 tailored to individual skin type and hair color.1,6,24 Multiple treatments are typically required,1 however, results (60% hair reduction) may last up to 12 weeks after one session.27 For optimal results, individuals should avoid tanning but should shave prior to treatment to prevent conducting thermal energy to adjacent epidermis.1 IPL is most effective in individuals with the combination of darker hair and lighter skin.1
IPL has several advantages, including lower cost compared to laser hair removal and the ability to treat large surface areas (back, chest, and legs). However, IPL is generally less effective than laser hair removal, requires more treatment sessions,28 and the IPL device is bulky, heavy, and difficult to maneuver as it houses a lamp and cooling device.18 Adverse events include pain, edema, erythema, hypopigmentation, and hyperpigmentation.1,18,24 IPL devices can emit inconsistent fluence and wavelengths from pulse to pulse, making it difficult to predict efficacy.18
Electrolysis is a permanent method of hair removal,1,6,8 but patients with hirsutism will experience conversion of vellus to terminal hairs in treatment areas. The three types of electrolysis [1) galvanic (direct current) electrolysis, 2) thermolysis (alternating current), and 3) combination/blend method] all involve inserting a probe to deliver electric currents that destroy and prevent regrowth of hair follicles.1
Galvanic electrolysis treatment is slow (15 seconds to 3 minute application per hair) with multiple treatments required; however, it can reduce the number of active hair follicles by 80% to 90%.1 This technique is tedious, time-consuming, painful, and can cause post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and scarring, and is not recommended for larger areas requiring hair removal.8 In contrast, thermolysis is faster than galvanic electrolysis due to a shorter skin contact time, but generally less effective – hair has been found to regrow in 20% to 40% of follicles post-treatment.1 The blend method (combination of galvanic electrolysis and thermolysis) is considered the most effective form, as it is as fast as thermolysis and less painful than galvanic electrolysis.1
Adverse events of electrolysis depend on current type, duration, and intensity, but include pain, scarring/keloid formation in susceptible patients, and post-inflammatory hypo- or hyperpigmentation. Topical anesthetics can be offered before treatment, however maintaining sensation is preferred as pain is related to skin damage.6 Erythema and edema are common but transient, and crusting or follicular nodules may form with repeated insertion of a needle into the same follicle. There is also risk of local infection if instruments are not cleaned properly; operators should wear gloves at all times and apply antibacterial ointment to the area post-treatment.6 The efficacy of electrolysis depends largely on the operator’s skills, and unfortunately there is no standardization of licensure to practice this technique.1,6
Photodynamic Therapy (PDT)
PDT involves the application of a topical photosensitizer6 and subsequent exposure to nonionizing radiation of red light (635 nm) through a projector, broadband light device, or laser.29 Light is absorbed by a photosensitizer, subsequently forming singlet oxygen that causes lipid peroxidation of follicular cell membranes and protein damage,6,8 resulting in phototoxic effects on hairs.30 The most common topical agents used for PDT are 10% or 20% topical 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) and methyl aminolevulinate – prodrugs that lead to the formation of a photosensitizer, protoporphyrin IX (PPIX). PDT treatment duration is dependent on the incubation time of 5-ALA, which should be sufficient to allow for its conversion to PPIX. The incubation period for 5-ALA is typically 3 hours29 followed by brief light exposure.31 PDT can be used in all skin and hair types as its mechanism of action is independent of melanin concentration and has minimal side-effects.30 Uebelhoer et al. described a 40% hair reduction at 6 months of wax epilated areas after ALA application for 3 hours with one treatment of irradiation with continuous wave 630 nm red light.32 Moreover, in a recent study by Comacchi et al. on the use of PDT in idiopathic hirsutism and hypertrichosis, two to five treatments (with a 1 month period between treatments) led to a 75% hair reduction at 12 months.30 Since PDT is primarily used to treat cutaneous malignancy, its use in hair removal is limited and further investigations are required.8,12
Topical Eflornithine Hydrochloride
Eflornithine hydrochloride 13.9% cream (Vaniqa®), is a topical prescription medication that is not meant to be used alone and should be combined with another hair removal technique. Topical eflornithine does not fall under epilation or depilation as it does not remove hair but rather slows facial hair growth, and inhibition of ornithine decarboxylase is the postulated mechanism of action. If applied twice daily at least 8 hours apart, results may be seen as early as 4 to 8 weeks. Adverse event rates include acne, folliculitis, stinging or burning, dry skin, itching, tingling, redness or irritation, indigestion, rash, and dizziness. Patients should consult their physician before using eflornithine if pregnant, planning pregnancy, or breastfeeding.2
This article is a general overview of hair removal practices, which have evolved from utilizing waxes and blades, to advanced lasers and electrolysis, with further advancements still being studied.1 Residual, unwanted hair is a common problem for many individuals and traditional methods of hair removal (e.g., shaving and waxing) have provided temporary solutions and unsatisfactory results. Laser therapy is a safe modality that can produce permanent results in some individuals.11,12 Electrolysis is a permanent hair removal method but can be tedious and associated with several adverse events. A relatively recent FDA and Health Canada approved treatment, eflornithine hydrochloride 13.9% cream, can be used in combination with another hair removal technique to slow the rate of facial hair growth. Importantly, studies examining hair removal efficacy are limited to individuals with darker hair and fairer skin, whereby precautionary measures such as cooling devices are recommended for safe treatment. Further research is required to develop safe and effective treatments for those with lighter-colored hair.12
- Fernandez AA, Franca K, Chacon AH, et al. From flint razors to lasers: a timeline of hair removal methods. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2013 Jun;12(2):153-62.
- Vaniqa® (eflornithine hydrochloride) cream, 13.9% [Prescribing information]. Revised January 2018. Allergan USA, Inc., Madison, NJ. Available at: https://media.allergan.com/actavis/actavis/media/allergan-pdf documents/productprescribing/20180128-VANIQA-USPI-73326US11.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2021.
- Ramos-e-Silva M, de Castro MC, Carneiro LV, Jr. Hair removal. Clin Dermatol. 2001 Jul-Aug;19(4):437-44.
- Rietzler M, Maurer M, Siebenhaar F, et al. Innovative approaches to avoid electric shaving-induced skin irritation. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2016 Jun;38 Suppl 1:10-6.
- Retallack GB. Razors, shaving and gender construction: an inquiry into the material culture of shaving. MCR [Internet]. 1999 Jan 01;49(1). Available from: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17782. Accessed August 12, 2021.
- Olsen EA. Methods of hair removal. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 Feb;40(2 Pt 1):143-55; quiz 56-7.
- Wanitphakdeedecha R, Alster TS. Physical means of treating unwanted hair. Dermatol Ther. 2008 Sep-Oct;21(5):392-401.
- Ort RJ, Anderson RR. Optical hair removal. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 1999 Jun;18(2):149-58.
- Khanna N, Chandramohan K, Khaitan BK, Singh MK. Post waxing folliculitis: a clinicopathological evaluation. Int J Dermatol. 2014 Jul;53(7):849-54.
- Lim V, Simmons BJ, Maranda EL, et al. Sugaring-Modern Revival of an Ancient Egyptian Technique for Hair Removal. JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jun 1;152(6):660.
- Altunel CT, Kartal SP. Reconceptualizing the permanence of alexandrite laser hair removal results: a long-term follow-up study. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2020 Nov 16;22(6-8):271-4.
- Dierickx CC. Hair removal by lasers and intense pulsed light sources. Dermatol Clin. 2002 Jan;20(1):135-46.
- Elman M, Klein A, Slatkine M. Dark skin tissue reaction in laser assisted hair removal with a long-pulse ruby laser. J Cutan Laser Ther. 2000 Mar;2(1):17-20.
- Adrian RM, Shay KP. 800 nanometer diode laser hair removal in African American patients: a clinical and histologic study. J Cutan Laser Ther. 2000 Dec;2(4):183-90.
- Barolet D. Low fluence-high repetition rate diode laser hair removal 12-month evaluation: reducing pain and risks while keeping clinical efficacy. Lasers Surg Med. 2012 Apr;44(4):277-81.
- Campos VB, Dierickx CC, Farinelli WA, et al. Hair removal with an 800-nm pulsed diode laser. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Sep;43(3):442-7.
- Campos VB, Dierickx CC, Farinelli WA, et al. Ruby laser hair removal: evaluation of long-term efficacy and side effects. Lasers Surg Med. 2000 26(2):177-85.
- Gan SD, Graber EM. Laser hair removal: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2013 Jun;39(6):823-38.
- Greppi I. Diode laser hair removal of the black patient. Lasers Surg Med. 2001 28(2):150-5.
- Royo J, Urdiales F, Moreno J, et al. Six-month follow-up multicenter prospective study of 368 patients, phototypes III to V, on epilation efficacy using an 810-nm diode laser at low fluence. Lasers Med Sci. 2011 Mar;26(2):247-55.
- Wheeland RG. Simulated consumer use of a battery-powered, hand-held, portable diode laser (810 nm) for hair removal: A safety, efficacy and ease-of-use study. Lasers Surg Med. 2007 Jul;39(6):476-93.
- Garcia C, Alamoudi H, Nakib M, et al. Alexandrite laser hair removal is safe for Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI. Dermatol Surg. 2000 Feb;26(2):130-4.
- Kutlubay Z. Alexandrite laser hair removal results in 2359 patients: a Turkish experience. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009 Jun;11(2):85-93.
- Fayne RA, Perper M, Eber AE, et al. Laser and Light Treatments for Hair Reduction in Fitzpatrick Skin Types IV-VI: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018 Apr;19(2):237-52.
- Goldberg DJ, Littler CM, Wheeland RG. Topical suspension-assisted Q-switched Nd:YAG laser hair removal. Dermatol Surg. 1997 Sep;23(9):741-5.
- Haedersdal M, Beerwerth F, Nash JF. Laser and intense pulsed light hair removal technologies: from professional to home use. Br J Dermatol. 2011 Dec;165 Suppl 3:31-6.
- Gold MH, Bell MW, Foster TD, et al. Long-term epilation using the EpiLight broad band, intense pulsed light hair removal system. Dermatol Surg. 1997 Oct;23(10):909-13.
- Thaysen-Petersen D, Bjerring P, Dierickx C, et al. A systematic review of lightbased home-use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 May;26(5):545-53.
- Touma DJ, Gilchrest BA. Topical photodynamic therapy: a new tool in cosmetic dermatology. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2003 Jun;22(2):124-30.
- Comacchi C, Bencini PL, Galimberti MG, et al. Topical photodynamic therapy for idiopathic hirsutism and hypertrichosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jun;129(6):1012e-4e.
- Shin H, Yoon JS, Koh W, et al. Nonpigmented hair removal using photodynamic therapy in animal model. Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Oct;48(8):748-62.
- Uebelhoer NS, Dover JS. Photodynamic therapy for cosmetic applications. Dermatol Ther. 2005 May-Jun;18(3):242-52.