Sirius Infusonic- reviewed and rejected
The Infusonic supposedly uses the same technology as the Clarisonic Opal Sonic Infusion System. In fact, I was given the Sept 2010 clinical efficacy study on the Clarisonic Opal as support for the Infusonic. That’s unfortunate because Marta found the Clarisonic Opal to be monumentally unintelligent. Even more regrettable, upon subsequent review of the Clarisonic Opal study, I discarded it because the Opal and the Infusonic employ completely different frequencies, rendering the devices incomparable.
In esthetics, professional ultrasound equipment is used to penetrate products and for cellulite reduction. However, a certain frequency is required in order to use sonic waves for effective product penetration. According to the most recent update (June 2011) to ultrasound technology studies, “low‐frequency ultrasound is significantly more potent in enhancing skin permeability (1-3 MHz).” I was told the Infusonic operates at 6 MHz frequency, which is double the effective threshold of 1 to 3 MHz.
Furthermore, I have found nearly identical devices to the Infusonic all over the web making completely different claims to the devices’ abilities. There is the Ultrasonic facial beauty machine, which uses “photon therapy.” And there are a couple of varieties of the device on Amazon.com that indicate the device uses 5 MHz frequency and claims to be a face lifter of sorts. Science aside, my own use of the device wasn’t exactly successful. I was told that that the Infusonic can be used with any serum, cream, lotion or moisturizer. However, any time I used a heavy type of cream with the Infusonic, there was usually product residue left on the skin, indicating that the product hadn’t properly absorbed.
Does the Infusonic enable sonic infusion? I siriusly doubt it.