ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2018
Specialized Living Wound Dressing Based on the Self-Assembly Approach of Tissue Engineering.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The emerging progress on wound dressings and their application in clinic wound management.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Extracellular Matrix-Based and Electrospun Scaffolding Systems for Vaginal Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Cellular human tissue-engineered skin substitutes investigated for deep and difficult to heal injuries.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Review
- Innovative Human Three-Dimensional Tissue-Engineered Models as an Alternative to Animal Testing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Adult Human Dermal Progenitor Cell Transplantation Modulates the Functional Outcome of Split-Thickness Skin Xenografts.Stem cell reports · 2019Article
- Bio-Functional Textiles: Combining Pharmaceutical Nanocarriers with Fibrous Materials for Innovative Dermatological Therapies.Pharmaceutics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is a high incidence of failure and recurrence for chronic skin wounds following conventional therapies. To promote healing, the use of skin substitutes containing living cells as wound dressings has been proposed. The aim of this study was to produce a scaffold-free cell-based bilayered tissue-engineered skin substitute (TES) containing living fibroblasts and keratinocytes suitable for use as wound dressing, while considering production time, handling effort during the manufacturing process, and stability of the final product. The self-assembly method, which relies on the ability of mesenchymal cells to secrete and organize connective tissue sheet sustaining keratinocyte growth, was used to produce TESs. Three fibroblast-seeding densities were tested to produce tissue sheets. At day 17, keratinocytes were added onto 1 or 3 (reference method) stacked tissue sheets. Four days later, TESs were subjected either to 4, 10, or 17 days of culture at the air⁻liquid interface (A/L). All resulting TESs were comparable in terms of their histological aspect, protein expression profile and contractile behavior in vitro. However, signs of extracellular matrix (ECM) digestion that progressed over culture time were noted in TESs produced with only one fibroblast-derived tissue sheet. With lower fibroblast density, the ECM of TESs was almost completely digested after 10 days A/L and lost histological integrity after grafting in athymic mice. Increasing the fibroblast seeding density 5 to 10 times solved this problem. We conclude that the proposed method allows for a 25-day production of a living TES, which retains its histological characteristics in vitro for at least two weeks.
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.