4.4 Article

Evaluation of wound healing activities of kefir products

Journal

BURNS
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 719-723

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.12.005

Keywords

Kefir gel; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Wound healing

Funding

  1. Medicinal Plants and Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kefirs are natural probiotic compounds with antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties which were tested in experimental burn injury. Kefir gels were prepared from an extract of continuously cultured kefir grains in MRS Broth medium for 24, 48 and 96 h. Similar burn injuries were made on dorsal skin surface of 56 rats. After 24 h the wounds were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The infected rats were divided in to 7 groups of 8 rats each. The base gel, silver sulfadiazine ointment, kefir 24 h gel, kefir 48 h gel, kefir. 96 h gel and kefir grains 96 h gel were applied twice a day. Burn wound area was measured at baseline, one and two weeks. After two weeks the animals in all groups were sacrificed and whole skin wound areas were removed and percentage of epithelization, scar formation, inflammation and angiogenesis were evaluated. Results indicated that at the end of the 2nd week the percentage of wound size were lowest in order of kefir 96 h gel < kefir grains 96 h gel < kefir 48 h gel < kefir 24 h gel < silver sulfadiazine 1% < untreated and based gel groups. At the end of the 2nd week the percentage of inflammation was lower and percentage of epithelization and scar formation was higher in order of kefir 96 h gel, kefir grains 96 h gel, kefir 48 h gel, kefir 24 h gel, silver sulfadiazine 1%, base gel and untreated groups. In conclusion the kefir gel therapy was an effective therapeutic approach to improve outcomes after severe burn as compared to conventional silver sulfadiazine treatment. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available