Insulated probes with blend or galvanic

Hair Removal Methods Professional Electrolysis
#1

I’ve read differing opinions on the use of insulated probes with blend or straight galvanic electrolysis… I’d love to hear anyone’s reasoning on why or why not, especially relating to whether or not lye reaching the follicle opening (and bubbling out) really matters in terms of permanent removal.

My electrologist has just tried out insulated probes on me (with straight galvanic) and seems to be having good releases but with less redness post.

This is important to me because my skin is quite reactive but of course if that means lesser effectiveness I don’t mind enduring more redness with non insulated probes.

Anyone’s experience with this is greatly appreciated!

#2

If your skin is reacting better with insulated probes and it makes you happier then go with insulated probes. There are blend specific insulated probes which have more exposed surface than probes for thermolysis. I believe lye tends to degrade insulation on probes faster than thermolysis.

1 Like
#3

In my opinion, insulated probes truncate and defeat the purpose of galvanic electrolysis. Insulated probes were invented for the express purpose of controlling RF (thermolysis) energy which has very different properties than direct (galvanic) current.

1 Like
#4

In your opinion what is the purpose of galvanic electrolysis that is being disrupted by the use of insulated probes? I understand that surface area plays an important role in electrolysis in general but I think I’m failing to understand specifically in this instance.

#5

It is reacting better, it’s kind of night and day. Not only is the treatment less painful but my skin is almost back to normal since the switch to insulated… dectro isoblend probes btw to be more specific. I guess what i’m wondering and maybe it’s stupid… does less discomfort and post redness = less efficacy?

I’ve heard people allude to it online but is there any truth to the idea that less lye is being produced due to the lesser surface area the insulated probes provide? or is it the same concept as probe sizes where the same amount of current over a different surface area yields the same…

#6

I don’t think that an insulated probe would completely disrupt the galvanic process. If the insulation isn’t covering most of the probe, you should still generate a decent amount of lye in the follicle, and this should damage the stem cells if it rises closer to the opening of the follicle. I imagine that using an insulated probe for galvanic might require a longer exposure time to generate the same amount of lye as a non-insulated probe due to a smaller surface area.

Given that most galvanic operators would be doing multi-needle and using non-insulated probes, I can’t imagine there is a lot of practical experience we can lean on here. The use of insulated probes with galvanic is more typical of blend operators.

I believe that the IsoBlend probes have less insulation on them compared to the insulated probes designed for thermolysis. Maybe this allows for just enough surface area for the galvanic to do a decent enough job. I think you’ll know for sure in about 9 months.

As for your question around less discomfort and redness meaning less efficacy, it’s not such an easy answer. If someone walked out of a treatment with flawless skin, I would question whether the electrologist even turned on the machine. If someone walked out with their skin looking really beat up, I would also assume the treatment wasn’t as effective as it could be.

#7

The treatment is less painful because only a portion of the follicle is being affected by sodium hydroxide. I cannot recommend Isoblend (or isogard) probes. In 2018 it was discovered these probes had a serious design flaw that resulted in intermittent current discharge. The manufacturer never acknowledged a problem existed.

#8

sorry for the late reply @Hairadicator ,

Could you elaborate on the design flaw that causes the intermittent current discharge in the pro-tec probes?

#9

I believe it had something to do with a gap or uneven contact between the probe shank (base) and blade (actual filament) resulting in intermittent output and at times truncated output. This was probe after probe, and batch after batch. Initially I thought it was an accessory cord issue, then a machine issue. It’s been six years so I cannot remember specific details other than I moved on to other manufacturers and never had the same issues again.