Mixto vs. Encore

Ouch!

I have the Encore because we only want to use the best. . .

The ActiveFX, DeepFX and TotalFX results have been incredible.

Good choice!

Mixto is a CO2 laser like any other with full control on the settings from mild to full ablation so I don't get it how it would be 'Mikey mouse' compared to the FX's because all CO2 lasers have the same wavelength and generally the same maximal power output. I am just a grad student in physics, don't have Mixto, nor sell it, nor had a treatment with it, but just from general physical principles I can tell you the difference is made by the operator when he chooses settings appropriate for the skin type and goal, and I don't think preprogrammed settings by the manufacturer do the job. I had IPL, KTP, NdYag(laser genesis protocol), and Vbeam all on preprogrammed settings and neither of those nuked a single capillary in my face nor reduced redness.

The advantages of Mixto as I got it from their website is that its scanner doesn't scan side by side dots so the heat buildup is avoided, and no surprise patients don't need anesthesia nor ooze blood like some of the horror stories on this site about the fraxels.

This site shows results with real patients

http://www.drwilliamting.com/What_s_New.html

and I see very obvious improvement so apparently the laser is as good as the operator using it. I will wait though to see the actual verdict on the laser before springing for the money cause remember the initial Fraxels - big words in the begining and weak results at the end. Currently I am thinking of either Mixto or the Smatrxide but NOT the FX whose downtime approaches one for full resurfacing without the results of full resurfacing.

I probably wouldn't go so far as to actually call them "cheap doctors". . .because Mixto is still a good chunk of change. I'd say that they are just naive and were suckered in by one of the very talented laser reps.

I'm not a laser physics guru. . .but I can tell you from practical experience that a CO2 laser that doesn't hurt or have some downtime is practically a waste of time. An aggressive treatment, in the right patient, will give the best results. This means that they may have some discomfort (requiring numbing), may have lymphatic drainage, may have some small "blood spots", may be red for several days, and may look like they have really done something. If none of these things are present, I find it highly unlikely (given the same wavelength) that anything worthwhile was accomplished.

Of course the operator is key to any final outcome. But the equipment makes a huge difference in how good the treatments can actually become if all things were equal.

Programmed settings can make a difference. It can allow an operator without as much experience to more safely render treatments without as much risk. It can also allow patients and body parts that used to not receive treatment be treated. ActiveFX has a function to randomize the pattern so that it doesn't lay down the energy next to each other. This is extremely helpful.

The FX downtime does not come near to the length of downtime of a full resurfacing. However, it can be longer than Mixto. . .because it is doing more. It can also be programmed to stronger levels (within FX not necessarily compared to Mixto - I don't know the comparative data). . .resulting in a tradeoff of better results for more downtime. CO2 is ablative. There is no way around it. . .unless the power is turned down. . .then people will wonder,"Why did I even do that? I could have gone on a cruise and booked a facial to have the same end results but enjoyed it a whole heck of a lot more!" (Ok. This is a slight exaggeration - but you get my point.)