ArticleBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2015
Effects of epidermal growth factor-loaded mucoadhesive films on wounded oral tissue rafts.
Article in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of risk factors for radiation-induced oral mucositis for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and prognostic value of EGF and STREM-1.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
- In vitro three-dimensional organotypic culture models of the oral mucosa.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current treatments for traumatic oral mucosal wounds include the gold standard of autologous tissue and alternative tissue-engineered grafts. While use of autografts has disadvantages of minimal availability of oral keratinized tissue, second surgery, and donor site discomfort, tissue-engineered grafts are limited by their unavailability as off-the-shelf products owing to their fabrication time of 4-8 weeks. Hence, the current work aimed to develop a potentially cost-effective, readily available device capable of enhancing native mucosal regeneration. Considering the key role of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in promoting mucosal wound regeneration and the advantages of mucoadhesive delivery systems, mucoadhesive films composed of polyvinylpyrrolidone and carboxymethylcellulose were developed to provide sustained release of EGF for a minimum of 6 h. Bioactivity of released EGF supernatants was then confirmed by its ability to promote proliferation of BALB/3T3 fibroblasts. Efficacy of the developed system was then investigated in vitro using buccal tissues (ORL 300-FT) as a potential replacement for small animal studies. Although the mucoadhesive films achieved their desired role of delivering bioactive EGF in a sustained manner, treatment with EGF, irrespective of its release from the films or solubilized in medium, caused a hyperparakeratotic response from in vitro tissues with distinguishable histological features including thickening of the spinous layer, intra- and intercellular edema, and pyknotic nuclei. These significant morphological changes were associated with no improvements in wound closure. These observations raise questions about the potential of using in vitro tissues as a wound healing model and substitute for small animal studies. The mucoadhesive delivery system developed, however, with its potential for sustained release of bioactive growth factors and small molecules, may be loaded with other desired compounds, with or without EGF, to accelerate the process of wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.