4.5 Article

Evaluation of Nigella sativa oil loaded electrospun polyurethane nanofibrous mat as wound dressing

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE-POLYMER EDITION
卷 32, 期 13, 页码 1718-1735

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09205063.2021.1937463

关键词

Nigella sativa oil; polyurethane; nanofiber; wound dressing; release; wound healing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyurethane/Nigella sativa oil nanofibrous mat has significant antibacterial activity and promotes wound healing effectively. The release of NSO from the mat is controlled, and it shows no cytotoxicity.
Electrospun nanofibers have a natural wound healing effect due to their similarity to the extracellular matrix (ECM). Nigella sativa oil, which has therapeutic properties, is used for a wide variety of applications in traditional medicine. The aim of this study was to investigate the release characteristic and wound healing performance of Nigella sativa oil (NSO) loaded polyurethane (PU) electrospun nanofibrous mats in wound dressing applications. In addition, the antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of the electrospun mats were studied. Analyses using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) showed that PU/NSO nanofibrous mat with an average fiber diameter of 416 +/- 66 nm were successfully fabricated. NSO was released at a maximum ratio of 30% from the electrospun mat, and the Korsmeyer-Peppas model was identified as best for determining the release mechanism. Significant antibacterial activity was observed against Staphylococcus aureus (90.26%) and Escherichia coli (95.75%). The developed PU/NSO nanofibrous mat increased the cell viability more than 100% in human umbilical vein endothelial cell line (HUVEC) cell line. The NSO loaded PU nanofibrous mat significantly promoted the wound healing process on a rat wound model, and its wound closure reached approximately 85% compared to the control groups on the 9(th) day (p < 0.01). The results indicated PU/NSO nanofibrous mat is a suitable candidate for a wound dressing.

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

4.5
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