Medical Grade Red Light Therapy Devices: Celluma
There are so many red light therapy devices on the market that it can be difficult to understand how they work and which one is going to get you the best results. One of the most important things to look for first when examining medical grade red light therapy devices is whether or not it has been reviewed by the appropriate regulatory bodies such as the FDA, TUV, UL, CE, ISO or any other agency that regulates the manufacture of medical devices for safety and for efficacy. If the device does not have any of these credentials, then this should be a red flag to any licensed professional as well as home user looking for a medical grade quality red light therapy device.
As the manufacturer of Celluma, a Class II medical device, BioPhotas is registered and regulated by the FDA, ISO (International Standards Organization) and many other regulatory agencies. Celluma is also medically CE-Marked as a Class IIa device in Europe, and was the first device of its kind to receive this status. You really cannot compare a medical device like Celluma to the kinds of gadgets found online as it is not a true apples to apples comparison.
One obvious red flag to watch for is when the treatment time for a red light therapy device is short. For example only three to five minutes. This defies the laws of bio-optical physics. Therefore, a good question to ask prior to purchasing is: may I see the scientific research that proves that this protocol is effective? Ask for the clinical research (which should be from a credible source, such as Harvard School of Medicine) to support the recommended short treatment sessions. You may find that while there is no scientific research to support this shorter treatment time, there is excellent research to support longer treatment times.
Read on for excerpts from BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY which describes the many important factors required for light therapy to be effective (full study details noted below) including the relationship between dose, power and time.
Dose-Response, 7:358–383, 2009
Formerly Nonlinearity in Biology, Toxicology, and Medicine
Copyright © 2009 University of Massachusetts
BIPHASIC DOSE RESPONSE IN LOW LEVEL LIGHT THERAPY
Ying-Ying Huang _ Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Aesthetic and Plastic Center of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, P.R. China
Aaron C.-H. Chen _ Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Graduate Medical Sciences, Boston, MA
James D. Carroll _ THOR Photomedicine Ltd, 18A East Street, hesham, HP5 1HQ, UK
Michael R. Hamblin _ Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, MA
According to this study, “A biphasic dose response has been frequently observed where low levels of light have a much better effect on stimulating and repairing tissues than higher levels of light. The so-called Arndt-Schulz curve is frequently used to describe this biphasic dose response. This review will cover the molecular and cellular mechanisms in LLLT, and describe some of our recent results in vitro and in vivo that provide scientific explanations for this biphasic dose response.
“Energy (J) or energy density (J/cm2) is often used as an important descriptor of LLLT dose, but this neglects the fact that energy has two components, power and time, Energy (J) = Power (W) × Time (s) and it has been demonstrated that there is not necessarily reciprocity between them; in other words, if the power doubled and the time is halved then the same energy is delivered but a different biological response is often observed.
“The first law of photobiology states that for low power visible light to have any effect on a living biological system, the photons must be absorbed by electronic absorption bands belonging to some molecular photoacceptors, or chromophores.”
2.2. Action Spectrum and Tissue Optics
“One important consideration should involve the optical properties of tissue. There is a so-called ‘optical window’ in tissue, where the effective tissue penetration of light is maximized. This optical window runs approximately from 650 nm to 1200 nm. (Figure 2). The absorption and scattering of light in tissue are both much higher in the blue region of the spectrum than the red, because the principle tissue chromophores (hemoglobin and melanin) have high absorption bands at shorter wavelengths, tissue scattering of light is higher at shorter wavelengths, and furthermore water strongly absorbs infrared light at wavelengths greater than 1100-nm. Therefore the use of LLLT in animals and patients almost exclusively involves red and near-infrared light (600-1100-nm) (Karu and Afanas’eva 1995).”
2.7. Downstream cellular response
“Although the underlying mechanism of LLLT are still not completely understood, in vitro studies, animal experiments and clinical studies have all tended to indicate that LLLT delivered at low doses may produce a better result when compared to the same light delivered at high doses.”
There are well-understood and proven parameters that affect the efficacy of all light therapy devices. No other device on the market meets these parameters like Celluma. Incidentally, any red light therapy device may be used for five minutes, the results you accomplish will be commensurate with that short treatment time. Ethical medical grade red light therapy device manufacturers are not just trying to sell you a device, they are committed to providing science-based guidance so you achieve the best possible results for your clients/patients and yourself. When it comes to light therapy, longer treatment times will usually result in faster, better and longer lasting outcomes