4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

In vitro characterization of natural and synthetic dermal matrices cultured with human dermal fibroblasts

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 25, Issue 14, Pages 2807-2818

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.058

Keywords

tissue engineering; dermal replacement; human dermal fibroblasts; natural and synthetic matrices

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ideal dermal matrix should be able to provide the right biological and physical environment to ensure homogenous cell and extracellular matrix (ECM) distribution, as well as the right size and morphology of the neo-tissue required. Four natural and synthetic 3D matrices were evaluated in vitro as dermal matrices, namely (1) equine collagen foam, TissuFleece(R), (2) acellular dermal replacement, Alloderm(R), (3) knitted poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (10:90)-poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PLGA-PCL) mesh, (4) chitosan scaffold. Human dermal fibroblasts were cultured on the specimens over 3 weeks. Cell morphology, distribution and viability were assessed by electron microscopy, histology and confocal laser microscopy. Metabolic activity and DNA synthesis were analysed via MTS metabolic assay and [H-3]-thymidine uptake, while ECM protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry. TissuFleece(R). Alloderm(R) and PLGA-PCL mesh supported cell attachment, proliferation and neo-tissue formation. However. TissuFleece(R) contracted to 10% of the original size while Alloderm(R) supported cell proliferation predominantly on the surface of the material. PLGA-PCL mesh promoted more homogenous cell distribution and tissue formation. Chitosan scaffolds did not support cell attachment and proliferation. These results demonstrated that physical characteristics including porosity and mechanical stability to withstand cell contraction forces are important in determining the success of a dermal matrix material. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available