What's the difference between the older Thermage TC and the newer Thermage NXT?
I got this question and thought it might be worth discussing since Thermage is really pushing the NXT and not wanting to support the TC anymore.

Via email response from Kevin:
In principle, there is no difference in clinical outcomes bet the TC and the NXT. However practically speaking there is because of the shorter lapse time between pulses on the NXT machine that one can get better results from it than from the TC. As you see from the attached thermage-issued slide show its sales reps use, the effective clinical targets are to heat collagen containing dermal layer to 56-60 degree celsius AND to maintain such temp range for 1-2 mins (though my goal is 2-3 mins long). Therefore the more rapid pulse firing of the NXT device would make it easier for the treater to "get there and stay there" more efficiently.

Personally, I don't have such problem using the TC device (by the way, I have both devices). When using the TC device, you want to make smaller sections on the face or abdomen or wherever then start and finish one section at a time. Make sure that within each section that any treated 3cm square per pulse is "re-pulsed" within 30-60seconds, this will ensure that any heated square will be effectively brought to the correct temp range and maintained there for those 2 minutes.

And this:
One more thing you asked was about the Alma Accent, it is of the "same" monopolar RF platform technically speaking combined with bipolar RF. The difference which I see is with thermage tips you know for sure they deliver the RF at consistent depth (2.4 mm or 4.3mm depending on the tips STC or DC). With the Alma Accent, I don't think the company has been able to provide the exact information on this thu I heard the depth was about 2.4 also but not any deeper.