4.5 Article

Novel sulfonated hydrogel composite with the ability to inhibit proteases and bacterial growth

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30440

关键词

sulfonated hydrogel; S-SEBS; wound dressing; protease inhibitor

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R43GM066428] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM66428-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a growing interest in the development of wound dressings that possess functionality beyond providing physical protection and an optimal moisture environment for the wound. To this end, a novel dressing material based on a sulfonated triblock polymer has been developed. This versatile polymer possesses an ion-exchange capability that is amenable to binding and controlled release of a variety of therapeutic agents. This sulfonated polymer offers several advantages over existing commercial hydrogels used as wound dressings. These include (1) hydrophilicity that is proportional to sulfonation level, (2) easy preparation of fabric supported dressings (e.g., polyester, cotton, nylon), (3) excellent mechanical integrity of the materials when hydrated, (4) stability to a variety of chemistries, and (5) stability to a variety of sterilization methodologies. In this study, polymer was coated onto a polyester fabric and then modified by ion exchange to prepare the sodium, silver, or doxycycline salts. These sulfonated triblock polymer formulations were then evaluated for their capacity to sequester the neutrophil proteases, elastase, and collagenase-2 (MMP8). Several of the formulations were found to sequester significant amounts of either elastase or collagenase. These formulations were demonstrated to be tested against a commercially available dressing that is currently marketed for its protease-inhibiting capability. The experimental dressing was statistically superior to the commercial dressing at inhibiting MMP-8 and elastase under the same conditions. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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