What's the Difference between Gels and Acrylics?

Basically the size and structure of the molecules make a difference in hardness and durability of the nail enhancement.
- this causes acrylics to be harder than gels
- gels tend to flex more and they tend to conform to the shape of the natural nail they are being applied to which gives them a “natural nail” look and feeling.

- acrylics come in a liquid and powder form – gels come a in honey-like form.

How they cure or harden.
- Acrylics are chemically initiated (heat cured) 
- Gels are photo initiated (UV light) The curing process is completed when they are put under a UV light.
- Gels have an inhibition layer (sticky layer) that must be removed before filing or finishing the nail – acrylics do not have this layer.
- Acrylics have a detectable odor; gel odour is much more subtle.

Both Acrylics and Gels
- are safe products.
- require the same natural nail preparation before application of the nail enhancement.
- can support any length or shape a client prefers.
- can be applied as a sculptured nail enhancement or as a tip and overlay.

A person’s nail shape, habits and lifestyle should be the measure that determines which nail enhancement system would best suit their needs.

What's the Diffence between Tips and a Sculpted Nail?

These terms simply refer to how the extension (or length) of the nail enhancement is created.

Sculptured nails are created by applying forms to the end of the finger. The forms are removed once the nail enhancement has been sculpted. Then the nail enhancement is filed and finished.

Tips are glued to the edge of the natural nail.

Shellac GEL POLISH

  Jodi's Nail Spa carries the first hybrid nail color created by CND after nearly five years of development in its state-of-the-art laboratory. Now you can say good-bye to chips, smudges, and dry time and say hello to Shellac™ Hybrid Nail Color! This revolutionary product applies like polish, wears flawlessly for 14 days of high gloss shine, and is removed in minutes.
   Shellac paints on like polish – base coat, color, top coat – and is cured in a UV light so there is zero dry time. Shellac also doesn't require ANY filing or buffing of the natural safe, so Shellac is even safe for children. The colors are hypo-allergenic, and “3-Free” – no formaldehyde, toluene or DBP. 
    The formula is thin and flexible like polish, so it not only looks natural, it provides strong natural nail protection with a resilient mirror finish that resists dullness and chipping, even during the most rigorous activities. As amazing as Shellac is on, removal is just as satisfying! No soaking, drilling or filing is necessary. Ten minutes of removal time in exchange for two weeks of perfect color is all it takes. Say good-bye to manicure frustration and hello to pure manicure satisfaction.

Artificial Nails Under 16

My salon will not apply artificial nails on anyone under the age of 16. My insurance does not cover this service.

As a teenager, there are more hormones that causes the natural nail to be more oily. A nail technician would need to over file the nail to ensure the products adhere. This causes unnecessary damage. Often artificial nails "pop" off more easily which also causes more damage. 

A Shellac manicure is a better option as there is no filling on the natural nail.

A Habit that's Hard to Break

Why do people bite their nails? Many of them do it for the same reason behind many bad habits. They are bored, nervous or fidgety. Sometimes they do it because their nails are ragged and in a bad condition, so getting rid of them seems like the best option. For most people, nail biting is largely a subconscious habit, something they do without actually thinking about it. 

Surveying the Damage. Fingernails can harbor a lot of germs. When a person continuously puts their nails in their mouth, those germs can spread. Along with infections, nail biting can also damage tooth enamel and lead to other dental issues. Unsurprisingly, the main reason people want to stop biting their nails had more to do with appearance than health. Extremely short nails - especially those with bleeding, reddened or broken skin around them - do not look attractive on anyone. People often find themselves putting more energy into hiding their nails than overcoming the habit.

Making changes. Here are some suggestions to get you started:

1) Stand in front of a mirror and chew your nails, looking carefully how you appear, what faces do you make? Do you see what other people are seeing?

2) Keep a daily record that notes when, where and/or with around whom you bite your nails so you can pinpoint any patterns. Once you become aware of your routines, you can begin to actively prevent them. For example: If you realize that you chew your nails only while you are on the phone with your mother-in-law, then you can keep something next to the phone to distract you when talking to her.

3) Find something else to do. Keep stress balls close to where you most often bite your nails. If you chew them while reading, then keep the balls next to your book. If you chew your nails while on the phone keep them next to the phone. You can also pick up a pencil and doodle or grab some putty and mold it into different shapes. These items will help you keep your hands occupied, thus deterring you from succumbing to the nail biting habit.

4) Aversion therapy is one of the oldest ways to stop nail biting. This therapy involves causing discomfort by
doing something such as making the nails taste terrible so biting becomes associated with an unpleasant feeling. Some people wear rubber bands on their wrists - if they start to bite their nails, they snap the band against their skin; the pain may make them stop biting. Some apply hot pepper or lemon juice to their nails, while others purchase products that are designed to make nails taste foul.

5) Hypnosis tapes and/or therapists for guidance on breaking the habit can be helpful for some clients.

6) Always carry nail clippers with you at all times, these can take care of a ragged nail or hangnail before the temptation to chew takes over.

7) Wearing gloves while at home can help some people. You can also put adhesive bandages on the fingers you chew the most to remind you not to cave in to the urge.

8) Taking care of your nails regularly. Keep your hands and nails moisturized by applying a good lotion
several times throughout the day. File your nails on a daily basis, keeping the edges rounded so they have no tempting sharp points to bite. 

9) There are nail enhancement services available for the special needs of nail biters. Many nail biters have found wearing nail enhancements very helpful in ‘kicking the habit’! It may be necessary to keep the nails shorter initially, and they may require more maintenance until the nail has recovered from damage caused by nail biting.

Effects of Over Filing on the Natural Nail

It's been heard so many times before; women complaining about their damaged natural nails “caused by artificial nails.” As an educated nail tech, I know that acrylic (or gel for that matter) is not the issue. A lot of the damage comes from a common malpractice in some nail salons - aggressive filing or drilling on the natural nail plate.

The nail plate is made up about 100 densely packed sheets of flattened cells.  It’s a super-tough, non-living structure primarily made up of keratin. It’s also a smooth surface, which is why light filing (to remove the shine) is necessary during prep to ensure adhesion. This light filing only removes 3-5 layers of the nail plate, which is safe and non-damaging.

Aggressive filing or drilling can quickly move through 25-35 layers of nail plate or more! Now, you are applying product to the, spongy porous layers of nail plate. Enhancements will grab the porous layers, like pouring Elmers glue into shag carpet. Pretty difficult to remove Elmers glue from shag carpet, but it comes off linoleum easier. Most filing is done in zone three; the regrowth area with younger, softer cells that have not completely flattened. The cost is the health of the natural nail. Proper preparation of the natural nail includes a number of steps to ensure adhesion. Pitting, etching or drilling on the nail plate is an outdated, damaging,
unnecessary step to natural nail prep.

What Are the Effects?
Here are a few symptoms of aggressive filing or drilling on the nail plate:

#1) Onycholysis: This is the loosening of the nail plate without shedding and it usually starts at the free edge and can continue to the lunula. The nail plate is held to the dermis (or skin) by a groove and rail structure.  That is how it stays on track as it moves or grows. Aggressive filing or drilling can dislodge the plate from the groove and rail structure, leading to Onycholysis. Onycholysis can lead to secondary infection and in severe cases, lead to nail bed scarring.

#2) Splinter Hemorrhage: This is caused by physical trauma, which can include aggressive filing or drilling on the natural nail. Under the nail plate, the nail bed contains blood vessels which carry nutrients and oxygen to the nail bed, as well as remove toxins. When the nail plate is damaged (in this case by aggressive filing or drilling) the blood vessels can leak blood into the nail bed - staining the nail bed in a vertical direction. The blood stain may last long after the trauma has healed.

#3) Rings of Fire: These are red, painful patches that develop on the nail plate from aggressive filing or drilling on the natural nail. Rings of fire are more commonly found in zone 3 (around the cuticle) when caused by drilling. When used at an angle in the cuticle area, the edge of the barrel bits cuts into the natural nail – ouch!

NEVER let anyone use a drill (aka electric file) on the natural nail. Even with a light abrasive, they are simply to powerful and run at high RPMs. Only files on the natural nail with a light hand using a 180-grit file or higher should be used. A lower grit is too abrasive for the natural nail and should only be used to shape or remove acrylic or gel product. 

Do UV Nail Lamps Emit Unsafe Levels of Ultraviolet Light? 

Three Experts Rebut Claims that UV Nail Lamps are Unsafe for Skin 

Doug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry, Chief Scientific Advisor, CND;
Paul Bryson, Ph.D. Chemistry, Director of R&D, OPI Products;
Jim McConnell, BA Chemistry, President, McConnell Labs

Introduction 
    A recent report incorrectly claimed that UV nail lamps are a source of "high-dose UV-A" and also inaccurately compared UV tanning beds with UV nail lamps. The report, Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light Exposure" (MacFarlane and Alonso) 1 , overestimated the exposure of client skin to UV light emitted from UV nail lamps and improperly characterized the effect of these lamps on the hand. 
    As three of the leading scientists in the professional nail industry, we were surprised by these claims. To verify the facts, using an independent laboratory we tested the leading UV nail lamps to determine how much UV-A and UV-B they emit and then compared that to natural sunlight.

Testing 
    In preparation for our study, we tested many UV nail lamps to determine which had the highest UV output and, as expected, found the nail lamp with the highest output was one designed to utilize four 9-watt UV bulbs. We also decided to test a popular UV nail lamp designed to utilize two 9-watt UV bulbs. The purpose for testing both lamps was to determine how exposures vary across the range of UV nail lamps with the goal of providing information that would apply to the majority of salons and situations. The selected two bulb UV nail lamp was chosen and tested because it is a popular brand and representative of other UV nail lamps within the two 9-watt UV bulb category. The selected four 9-watt UV bulb nail lamp was chosen because it had the highest measured UV output of any UV nail lamp tested. No attempt was made to test UV nail lamps utilizing only one UV bulb, since the overwhelming majority of UV nail lamps use two, three or four UV bulbs. The UV nail lamps selected for testing are likely representative of more than 90% of the UV nail lamps used in salons. 
    Lighting Science, Inc. of Phoenix, AZ., is a fully equipped, completely independent scientific testing laboratory that specializes in the development and testing of many types of illumination devices, including those that emit UV light and Lighting Science is not in the business of manufacturing or selling UV nail lamps. The two selected UV nail lamps were submitted to Lighting Science in brand-new condition. Highly sensitive UV detectors were placed where client hands would normally reside while inside a UV nail lamp. These detectors accurately measured the amount of UV-A and UV-B light emitted from each UV nail lamp. To ensure a proper comparison, Lighting Science also used the same test equipment to measure the UV-A and UV-B light found in natural sunlight. A discussion of these measurements and results is presented below. 
Discussion 
    The MacFarlane and Alonso report made several errors and misstatements concerning artificial nails products and how they are applied. The most notable involves the improper estimation of UV exposure to the skin by UV nail lamps, resulting in a faulty report conclusion. It is incorrect to conclude that putting a hand into a tanning bed with twelve 100-watt UV bulbs is the same as putting that hand into a UV nail lamp with four 9-watt bulbs because: 1) tanning bed users typically use these devices more often and for much longer periods than seen with nail salon services, 2) the authors mistakenly assumed that UV bulb "wattage" is a measure of UV exposure to the skin, when wattage is actually a measure of energy usage, 3) the authors erred significantly by relying solely on UV bulb wattage to estimate the actual amount of UV exposure to skin, and 4) they neglected to consider that UV light reflects many times inside the tanning bed and these internal reflections further increase UV exposure to skin, again demonstrating that MacFarlane and Alonso approach to estimating UV exposure to skin is not valid. Their comparisons to UV tanning beds simply doesn't make sense logically or scientifically. 
    The UV testing performed by Lighting Science used proper scientific techniques and equipment to measure both UV-A and UV-B radiation in terms of milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2), which is a measure of how much UV light falls upon each and every square centimeter of skin (about 1/8 square inch). It is important to understand that UV-B is considered by many to be more potentially damaging to skin than UV-A, which is why nail lamps rely on special UV bulbs that contain internal coatings designed to filter out most of the UV-B light. 
     It is important to note that clients visit a salon for UV gel nail application or maintenance twice each month and that each of their hands are placed into the UV lamp for intervals of two minute or less, for a total of 6-10min. In this report, we will always assume the highest level of exposure: 10 min per hand, twice per month. 
Results 
Testing by Lighting Sciences produced the following information: 
1. UV-B output for both UV nail lamps was less than what was found in natural sunlight. The bulbs used in UV nail lamps contain special internal filters which remove almost all UV-B, so this result is not surprising. The test results show that the amount of UV-B to which client skin is exposed is equal to what they could expect from spending an extra 17 to 26 seconds in sunlight each day of the two weeks between nail salon appointments.
2. UV-A exposure is much lower than suggested by MacFarlane and Alonso. Test results show that UV-A exposure for client skin is equivalent to spending an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in sunlight each day between salon visits, depending on the type of UV nail lamp used. A nail lamp with two UV bulbs corresponds to 1.5 minutes and a nail lamp with four UV bulbs corresponds to about 2.7 minutes each day between salon visits. 
    MacFarlane and Alonso claimed to find two cases of skin cancer that they suggest were caused by UV nail lamps. Both of their patients live in Texas, a climate where significant incidental UV exposure from sunlight is inevitable even in the absence of deliberate recreational exposure. One patient had been exposed to a UV nail lamp only eight times during the same year (we assume every two weeks for 4 months). During this same period, the patient would have been exposed to more UV-A and UV-B simply by spending 10 to 20 minutes eating her lunch outdoors in natural sunlight once per week. 
    Oddly, the authors described this patient as a 48-year-old white woman who claimed to have "moderate recreational UV exposure". We fail to understand how, under the circumstances, it could be concluded that this case of nonmelanoma skin cancer is caused by these eight exposures to a UV nail lamp, especially in light of the low levels of UV exposure expected during these few visits to a salon. We respectfully disagree and believe the results of Light Science’s independent testing are in agreement with our own laboratory findings supporting the safety of UV nail lamps. 
Conclusion 
• McFarlane and Alonso's report has a faulty conclusion because it is based on incorrect assumptions. 
• Our testing shows that UV nail lamps emit relatively low levels of UV light and these exposure levels are considered well within safe levels when they are used to perform UV artificial nail services in nail salons. 

    Unfortunately, inaccurate information can have a long-term damaging effect, even when later disproved. Already, some are unfairly distorting the risks of cancer on Internet blogs, YouTube and other media outlets, even to the extent of offering the exceptionally unwise advice of forgoing the UV curing of products that will not cure otherwise. We believe a fair examination of the facts supports the conclusion that UV nail lamps are safe when used as directed and brief client exposures are as safe as brief exposures to natural sunlight. Client hands are likely to be exposed to more UV light while driving their cars than they will receive from UV gel nail services. 
Reference: 
1. Occurrence of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers on the Hands After UV Nail Light Exposure, MacFarlane, D.F., Alonso, C.A., Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(4):447-449