4.4 Article

A comparison of the wound healing process after the application of three dermal substitutes with or without basic fibroblast growth factor impregnation in diabetic mice

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.01.031

关键词

Artificial dermis; basic fibroblast growth factor; dermal substitute; sustained release; wound heating; chronic skin ulcers

类别

资金

  1. Kansai Medical University
  2. Gunze Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pelnac Gplus (R), Integra (R), and Terudermis (R) are approved artificial dermis products in Japan. Previously, we proved that Pelnac Gplus (R) was able to sustain basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and accelerated wound healing by releasing impregnated bFGF. In this study, we impregnated Pelnac Gplus (R), Integra (R), and Terudermis (R) with bFGF and compared the binding activity and wound-healing process. We applied bFGF to each material and compared the bFGF concentrations in the surrounding area after 24-h incubation. For the in vivo study, dermal substitutes were impregnated with bFGF and implanted into full-thickness wounds of BKS.Cg-Leprdb/Leprdb/Jcl mice. Wounds were evaluated at days 7, 14, and 21 after implantation. The in vitro study showed that bFGF is strongly bound to Integra (R), followed by Pelnac Gplus (R) and Terudermis (R). The in vivo study showed that fibroblasts and capillaries had infiltrated into the Pelnac Gplus (R) but not the Integra (R) or Terudermis (R). Furthermore, long epithelium and wide granulation tissue were formed in the Pelnac Gplus (R) with bFGF group. The Terudermis (R) with bFGF group had more capillaries than other groups, but only at the base of the wound. The combination of Pelnac Gplus (R) with bFGF may be a novel approach for treating full-thickness skin defects or chronic skin ulcers. (C) 2020 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/ticenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据