4.6 Article

Beta-glucan-loaded nanofiber dressing improves wound healing in diabetic mice

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 269-280

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2018.05.031

关键词

Beta-glucan; Nanofiber; Diabetic db/db mice; Needle-free electrospinning; Wound dressing; Wound healing

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [240123/O30]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increased prevalence of chronic wounds requires novel treatment options. The aim of this study was to develop a beta-glucan (beta G)-loaded nanofiber wound dressing. Nanofibers were prepared using the needle-free Nanospider (TM) technology, an electrospinning method which enables the production of nanofibers at an industrial scale. The beta G was selected as active ingredient based on its confirmed wound healing potential in both animals and humans. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) and polyethylene oxide (PEO) were included as copolymers. Rheological profiles of spinning solutions containing HPMC, PEO, beta G, ethanol and water, were optimized. The nanofiber formation was confirmed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FE-SEM), and both nanofibers with (beta G-nanofibers) or without beta G (No beta G-nanofibers) were evaluated by their swelling index and FT-IR spectroscopy. The formulations, active ingredient and excipients were tested for their possible in vitro toxicity in keratinocytes. Finally, the wound healing potential of the nanofibers was tested in externally induced excisional wounds in male diabetic db/db mice. Three different doses of beta G-nanofibers and the beta G-free, No beta G-nanofibers, were evaluated for their in vivo wound healing efficacy. All nanofiber-treatments provided improved wound healing as compared to the negative control (water). All beta G-nanofiber treated groups exhibited significantly improved wound healing as compared to the No beta G-nanofiber treated group, indicating the potential of beta G-nanofibers as 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

4.6
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