So you’ve decided to get a hair transplant. You’re not alone – hair loss affects up to 85 percent of men and 40 percent of women. In fact, according to a recent report there has been a 43.3% increase in the number of Google searches for “hair transplant” since 2017.
But what if there was another option? Scalp micropigmentation (SMP) has been growing in popularity as an alternative to a hair transplant (HT), and for good reason – SMP can give you the same results as a hair transplant without the pain, expense, and time commitment.
So, which is better, scalp micropigmentation or a hair transplant? Let’s take a look.
There are a few key reasons why scalp micropigmentation is often seen as a better option than a hair transplant, even though both can restore the appearance of a full head of hair.
The principal reasons why scalp micropigmentation might be preferable to a hair transplant:
- SMP is less expensive
- SMP is less invasive
- SMP has fewer side effects
- SMP can be completed in a day, while a transplant takes months to heal
- There’s no downtime after SMP, while transplants require weeks of recovery.
What is Scalp Micropigmentation?
Scalp micropigmentation is a cosmetic treatment that involves depositing pigment into the scalp to create the appearance of full head of hair. The pigments used in SMP are typically made from iron oxide, which is safe for use on the skin.
The treatment is performed using a specially designed device that resembles a tattoo machine. The needles used in SMP are much smaller than those used in traditional tattooing, and they deposit pigment into the upper dermis rather than the deeper layers of skin.
Scalp micropigmentation is considered a semi-permanent solution for hair loss, as the pigments do gradually fade over time. However, touch-ups can be performed to maintain the results indefinitely.
What is a Hair Transplant?
A hair transplant is a surgical procedure in which hair is removed from one area of the scalp and transplanted to another. The most common type of HT is called follicular unit transplantation, or FUT.
This procedure removes a strip of skin containing hair follicles from the donor area, typically at the back of the head. The individual follicles are then transplanted to the area where hair loss has occurred, most often the top or front of the head.
Hair transplants can also be performed using follicular unit extraction or FUE. In this procedure, individual hair follicles are harvested from the donor area and transplanted to the site of hair loss. While FUT may yield better results in terms of density and coverage, FUE is less invasive and has a shorter recovery time.
Ultimately, the best choice for a hair transplant procedure depends on the patient’s goals and circumstances.
Differences Between Scalp Micropigmentation and Hair Transplants
There are a few key differences between scalp micropigmentation and hair transplants. First, scalp micropigmentation is much less invasive. The treatment can be performed in a single session, and there is no need for anesthesia or stitches.
Second, scalp micropigmentation is a fraction of the cost of a hair transplant. A typical scalp micropigmentation treatment can cost between $1,800 and $4,000, while hair transplant surgery (hair restoration surgery) can cost between $4,000 and $15,000.
Third, scalp micropigmentation produces immediate results, while it can take up to 12 months to see the full results of a hair transplant.
Fourth, scalp micropigmentation is semi-permanent, while the results of a hair transplant are permanent.
Finally, scalp micropigmentation can also be used to cover up scarring from previous hair transplants.
Why is Scalp Micropigmentation Better than a Hair Transplant?
There are two main ways to address hair loss: scalp micropigmentation and hair transplants. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but scalp micropigmentation is generally considered the better option. Here’s why:
- Scalp micropigmentation is less invasive than a hair transplant. There’s no need for surgery, which means there’s no risk of infection or other complications.
- SMP is less expensive than a hair transplant. Surgery is costly, and hair transplants often require multiple sessions to achieve desired results.
- Scalp micropigmentation is more convenient than hair transplants. There’s no need to take time off work for surgery or recovery.
- SMP results are more natural-looking than hair transplants. Because the pigments are placed in the upper dermis, they blend in with natural hair color and follicles. This creates a realistic 3D effect that looks like natural hair.
- Hair transplants can result in scarring, which is not concerned with scalp micropigmentation.
- Scalp micropigmentation is a permanent solution for hair loss while a hair transplant is not. The transplanted hair can fall out over time, and you may require additional surgery to maintain results.
Overall, scalp micropigmentation is considered to be a safer, more effective, and more affordable solution for hair loss than hair transplants.
Scalp micropigmentation and hair transplants are both effective solutions for hair loss. However, scalp micropigmentation is generally the more desirable option due to its safety, affordability, convenience, and natural-looking results.
If you’re considering your options, be sure to consult with a qualified scalp micropigmentation specialist to see if it’s right for you.