REDUCING FACIAL WRINKLE SIZE USING POLYMERS 137 In Ballistometer testing, the differences were more pronounced (Figure 3). The 4% AMC formulation made skin signifi cantly more elastic than all other formulations. Two percent AMC made skin signifi cantly less elastic than the placebo formulation and signifi cantly less elastic than before treatment. However, 2% AMC did not differ signifi cantly from PVP or placebo or from baseline before treatment. SKIN TOPOLOGY BY FRINGE PROJECTION The topology of the skin—roughness, fi ne lines, and wrinkles—was measured by image analysis of 3D photographs recorded with the AEVA system. The formulations applied to the skin did not differ signifi cantly in this analysis, but there were some that were sig- nifi cantly different from the baseline before treatment. One of these was present in the surface roughness measurements, which did not show signifi cant differences between the Figu re 2. Change in Cutometer parameters R0 and R3 after treatment with polymer formulations. Lower values indicate fi rmer, more elastic skin. Treatments denoted with different letters are signifi cantly different from each other (p  0.05). Those denoted with * are signifi cantly different from baseline (no treatment) (p  0.05). Figure 3. Change in Coeffi cient of Restitution (CoR) after treatment. Higher values indicate fi rmer, more elastic skin. Treatments denoted with different letters are signifi cantly different from each other (p  0.05). Those denoted with * are signifi cantly different from baseline (no treatment) (p  0.05).

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 138 polymer formulations. However, for the 4% AMC formulation the skin roughness on the cheek was signifi cantly reduced compared with baseline, for both parameters Sa and Sq (Figure 4). The skin curvature area and density, which indicate the visibility of fi ne lines and wrinkles, showed a similar pattern (Figure 5). A signifi cant decrease in curvature area compared with baseline occurred after treatment with 4% AMC, whereas a signifi cant decrease in curvature density was seen with both 2% AMC and PVP. The PVP and placebo formula- tions did not show any signifi cant changes in the curvature parameters. Figure 6 shows the total wrinkle volume and area reported by AEVA. Wrinkle volume, but not area, decreased signifi cantly for 2% AMC. There was a relatively large decrease for 4% AMC as well, but this was not statistically signifi cant. In summary, the fringe projection data obtained with the AEVA system showed that the 4% AMC and 2% AMC formulations were effective in reducing the skin roughness and the visibility and volume of fi ne lines and wrinkles. However, the formulations did not differ signifi cantly from each other. CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF PRODUCT EFFECTS To test consumer acceptance of the prototype formulations, we surveyed the study sub- jects on their perception of the products’ effects. Specifi cally, we intended to learn if the subjects experienced a tightened skin feel and if they judged their appearance to be im- proved after product application (Figure 7). The subjects were also asked how tacky the products felt during all phases in the application process and whether the tacky feel was acceptable to them (Figure 8). As shown in Figure 7, the subjects on average found the 4% AMC formulation to yield a signifi cantly higher rating for tightened skin feel and tightened skin appearance than both 2% AMC and the placebo. The 2% AMC formulation was also rated signifi cantly higher than the placebo for tightened skin feel. None of the other differences were statistically signifi cant. Notably, there were no signifi cant differences between the formulations on smooth skin appearance. Figure 4. Change in skin roughness parameters Sa and Sq on cheek area measured by AEVA analysis. There are no signifi cant differences between treatments (p 0.05). Treatments denoted with * are signifi cantly dif- ferent from baseline (no treatment) (p  0.05).