These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Nanofiber-acellular dermal matrix as a bilayer scaffold containing mesenchymal stem cell for healing of full-thickness skin wounds.
    Author: Mirzaei-Parsa MJ, Ghanbari H, Alipoor B, Tavakoli A, Najafabadi MRH, Faridi-Majidi R.
    Journal: Cell Tissue Res; 2019 Mar; 375(3):709-721. PubMed ID: 30338376.
    Abstract:
    Full-thickness skin defect is one of the main clinical problems, which cannot be repaired spontaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of combining nanofibers with ADM as a bilayer scaffold for treatment of full-thickness skin wounds in a single-step procedure. The nanofibrous polycaprolactone/fibrinogen scaffolds were fabricated by electrospinning. Subsequently, mesenchymal stem cells were isolated from rat adipose tissues and characterized by flow cytometry. Cell adhesion, proliferation, and the epidermal differentiation potential of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) on nanofibrous scaffolds were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), alamarBlue, and real-time PCR, respectively. In animal studies, full-thickness excisional wounds were created on the back of rats and treated with following groups: ADM, ADM-ADSCs, nanofiber, nanofiber-ADSCs, bilayer, and bilayer-ADSCs. In all groups, wounds were harvested on days 14 and 21 after treatment to evaluate re-epithelialization, blood vessel density, and collagen content. The results indicated that ADSCs seeded on ADM, nanofiber, and bilayer scaffolds can promote re-epithelialization, angiogenesis, and collagen remodeling in comparison with cell-free scaffolds. In conclusion, nanofiber-ADSCs showed the best results for re-epithelialization (according to histological scoring), average blood vessel density (92.7 ± 6.8), and collagen density (87.4 ± 4.9%) when compared to the control and other experimental groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]