4.4 Article

Evaluation of a two-stage antibacterial hydrogel dressing for healing in an infected diabetic wound

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33543

关键词

antibacterial; diabetes; drug release; two-stage dressing; nano-Ag

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21175075, 21475070]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2012651, BK2012652, BK2011047]
  3. Application Research Item of Nantong City [BK2013028]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)
  5. Dr. Offer Plan of Jiangsu Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various types of wound dressings have been used to treat complex infections in diabetes mellitus. This study is the first to evaluate the healing effects using a two-stage dressing in infected diabetic wounds. A two-stage antibacterial hydrogel dressing (two-stage dressing) was established with two time phases, an antibacterial phase and a drug release phase. We established each phase by using a swelling and rate of drug release test. These results suggested that the antimicrobial phase is activated as soon as the two-stage dressing attaches to the skin. The drugs in the drug release layer of the dressing were released to a greater extent than expected 20-36 h after attachment to the skin, likely due to extensive water absorption. Histological analysis and measurement of vascular endothelial growth factor expression through in vivo testing suggested that the benefits of a two-stage dressing include rapid antibacterial properties, sustained drug release, and promotion of wound healing through cell proliferation as compared with the traditional composite antibacterial hydrogel dressing. Further in vivo tests confirmed that separation of the antibacterial and drug-releasing properties, along with biocompatibility and rapid wound closure rates made two-stage dressings suitable for healing of infected wounds. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 1808-1817, 2017.

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