Bacterial cellulose as a potential biopolymer for wound care. A review
Source abstract
Abstract
Different types of wound dressings have been introduced in various forms such as membrane, gel, sponge, and hydrocolloid. Bacterial cellulose (BC) is a natural polymer produced by many bacterial cells. It has received much attention in wound-healing due to its attractive and suitable properties including purity, ultrafine network structure, high water holding capacity, excellent mechanical properties, cytocompatibility, and high crystallinity. In this review, the wound healing process is first described, then the types of wound dressings and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Also, BC-based wound dressings and their combination with other materials are investigated for antimicrobial activity.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Wound Healing and Treatments · Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials Department, Materials and Energy Research Center, Tehran, Iran
Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/1751-7915.1339210.1111/1751-7915.13392 ↗
2. 10.3390/nano709025710.3390/nano7090257 ↗
3. 10.1002/nano.20210004410.1002/nano.202100044 ↗
4. 10.1002/9783527807437.ch410.1002/9783527807437.ch4 ↗
5. Lina F.; Yue Z.; Jin Z.; Guang Y. Bacterial Cellulose for Skin Repair Materials. In Biomedical Engineering - Frontiers and Challenges ; Reza Fazel-Rezai Ed.; IntechOpen Limited 2011 249–274.10.5772/24323 ↗
6. 10.1021/bm801430x10.1021/bm801430x ↗
7. 10.1155/2022/121473410.1155/2022/1214734 ↗
8. Shrivastav, P.; Pramanik, S.; Vaidya, G.; Abdelgawad, M. A.; Ghoneim, M. M.; Singh, A.; Abualsoud, B. M.; Amaral, L. S.; Abourehab, M. A. Bacterial Cellulose as a Potential Biopolymer in Biomedical Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review. J. Mater. Chem. B. 2022, 2020, 2709.
9. Samson D.; Lefevre F.; Aronson N. Wound‐Healing Technologies: Low‐Level Laser and Vacuum‐Assisted Closure: Summary. AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries. 2004.
10. 10.1098/rsob.20022310.1098/rsob.200223 ↗
11. 10.3390/polym1403042110.3390/polym14030421 ↗
12. 10.1002/adhm.20210047710.1002/adhm.202100477 ↗
13. Walker, R.; Keogh, S.; Higgins, N.; Whitty, J.; Thalib, L.; Gillespie, B.; Dumville, J. Foam Dressings for Treating Pressure Ulcers (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 2014, CD0113321-0113316.
14. O’Meara, S.; Martyn‐St James, M. Alginate Dressings for Venous Leg Ulcers (Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, (4), CD010182.
15. 10.1590/0104-1169.3480.244510.1590/0104-1169.3480.2445 ↗
16. Lau E. What dressing: New wound dressings. Australian Pharmacist. 2015 34 60–64.
17. 10.2147/DMSO.S3602410.2147/DMSO.S36024 ↗
18. 10.1590/S0080-62342016000040002010.1590/S0080-623420160000400020 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.12.12710.1016/j.msec.2016.12.127 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.burns.2017.01.00410.1016/j.burns.2017.01.004 ↗
21. 10.1111/wrr.1249710.1111/wrr.12497 ↗
22. Jull, A. B.; Cullum, N.; Dumville, J. C.; Westby, M. J.; Deshpande, S.; Walker, N. Honey as a Topical Treatment for Wounds. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD005083.
23. 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S610.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S6 ↗
24. Rogers A. A.; Rippon M. G. Describing the rinsing cleansing and absorbing actions of hydrated superabsorbent polyacrylate polymer dressings. Wounds UK . 2017;13 48-53.
25. Liu, L. Q.; Moody, J.; Gall, A. A Quantitative. Ostomy Wound Manag. 2016, 62, 16–34.
26. 10.1016/j.nantod.2021.10129010.1016/j.nantod.2021.101290 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.04410.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.044 ↗
28. 10.2147/IJN.S8838410.2147/IJN.S88384 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.cej.2019.12199910.1016/j.cej.2019.121999 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.13100510.1016/j.cej.2021.131005 ↗
31. 10.1002/admt.20180062810.1002/admt.201800628 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.02.09510.1016/j.snb.2017.02.095 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.11074410.1016/j.eurpolymj.2021.110744 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.snb.2014.11.12010.1016/j.snb.2014.11.120 ↗
35. 10.3390/polym1410194910.3390/polym14101949 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.10929010.1016/j.eurpolymj.2019.109290 ↗
37. 10.1002/advs.20190267310.1002/advs.201902673 ↗
38. 10.1021/acsami.7b1772710.1021/acsami.7b17727 ↗
39. 10.1089/wound.2020.123210.1089/wound.2020.1232 ↗
40. 10.1155/2022/521761710.1155/2022/5217617 ↗
41. 10.3390/polym1207143610.3390/polym12071436 ↗
42. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00367.x10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00367.x ↗
43. 10.1038/s41378-020-0141-710.1038/s41378-020-0141-7 ↗
44. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000666912.86854.2b10.1097/01.ASW.0000666912.86854.2b ↗
45. Mostafalu P.; Amugothu S.; Tamayol A.; Bagherifard S.; Akbari M.; Dokmeci M. R.; Khademhosseini A.; Sonkusale S. Smart Flexible Wound Dressing with Wireless Drug Delivery. Paper Presented at: 2015 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS) Atlanta GA USA 2015.10.1109/BioCAS.2015.7348391 ↗
46. 10.3389/fcell.2021.70152510.3389/fcell.2021.701525 ↗
47. 10.1002/adfm.20200237010.1002/adfm.202002370 ↗
48. 10.1021/acs.biomac.1c0008610.1021/acs.biomac.1c00086 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.06.09410.1016/j.carbpol.2017.06.094 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.19610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.196 ↗
51. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b0045910.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b00459 ↗
52. 10.1021/acsnano.1c0020410.1021/acsnano.1c00204 ↗
53. 10.1007/s13346-017-0475-310.1007/s13346-017-0475-3 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.12.01410.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.12.014 ↗
55. 10.3390/polym1303041210.3390/polym13030412 ↗
56. 10.1007/s40883-017-0044-910.1007/s40883-017-0044-9 ↗
57. 10.1111/iwj.1292210.1111/iwj.12922 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.07.01310.1016/j.actbio.2010.07.013 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.08.01410.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.08.014 ↗
60. 10.1002/pen.2391710.1002/pen.23917 ↗
61. 10.1515/amma-2017-001410.1515/amma-2017-0014 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.ejps.2016.11.02810.1016/j.ejps.2016.11.028 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.05710.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.057 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.02.06510.1016/j.carbpol.2016.02.065 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.apsb.2014.06.01210.1016/j.apsb.2014.06.012 ↗
66. Etebu, E.; Arikekpar, I. Antibiotics: Classification and Mechanisms of Action with Emphasis on Molecular Perspectives. Int. J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Res. 2016, 4, 90–101
67. Denyer, S. P.; Hodges, N. A.; Gorman, S. P. Hugo and Russell’s Pharmaceutical Microbiology; John Wiley & Sons: London, 2008.
68. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.08.08610.1016/j.msec.2016.08.086 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.04410.1016/j.ejps.2017.03.044 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.actbio.2015.02.01810.1016/j.actbio.2015.02.018 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.08710.1016/j.carbpol.2016.11.087 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.05810.1016/j.msec.2017.04.058 ↗
73. 10.1002/jbm.b.3363510.1002/jbm.b.33635 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.msec.2012.09.02510.1016/j.msec.2012.09.025 ↗
75. 10.1007/s12221-016-5822-310.1007/s12221-016-5822-3 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.05310.1016/j.carbpol.2016.07.053 ↗
77. 10.1002/jbm.b.3159910.1002/jbm.b.31599 ↗
78. Isaei, E.; Mansouri, S.; Mohammadi, F.; Taheritarigh, S.; Mohammadi, Z. Novel Combinations of Synthesized ZnO NPs and Ceftazidime: Evaluation of Their Activity against Standards and New Clinically Isolated Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Avicenna. J. Med. Biotechnol. 2016, 8, 169–174.
79. 10.1177/205031212097071910.1177/2050312120970719 ↗
80. 10.1186/s12866-021-02411-y10.1186/s12866-021-02411-y ↗
81. 10.1186/1471-2334-9-12310.1186/1471-2334-9-123 ↗
82. 10.1021/acsami.7b1668010.1021/acsami.7b16680 ↗
83. 10.15171/apb.2018.04610.15171/apb.2018.046 ↗
84. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.05.03010.1016/j.carbpol.2009.05.030 ↗
85. 10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.12.00310.1016/j.arabjc.2013.12.003 ↗
86. 10.1016/j.cej.2021.12890810.1016/j.cej.2021.128908 ↗
87. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.01.04310.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.01.043 ↗
88. 10.3109/21691401.2015.110274110.3109/21691401.2015.1102741 ↗
89. Mansouri, M.; Barzi, S. M.; Zafari, M.; Chiani, M.; Chehrazi, M.; Nosrati, H.; Shams Nosrati, M. S.; Nayyeri, S.; Khodaei, M.; Bonakdar, S. Electrosprayed Cefazolin‐Loaded Niosomes onto Electrospun Chitosan Nanofibrous Membrane for Wound Healing Applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B. Appl. Biomater. 2022, 2022, 35039.
90. 10.1016/j.msec.2015.08.05010.1016/j.msec.2015.08.050 ↗
91. Sadri, M.; Sorkhi, S. A. Preparation and Characterization of CS/PEO/Cefazolin Nanofibers with in Vitro and in Vivo Testing. J. Nanomed. Res. 2017, 2, 100–110.
92. 10.1016/j.msec.2016.10.04810.1016/j.msec.2016.10.048 ↗
93. 10.1088/1748-605X/abc7f210.1088/1748-605X/abc7f2 ↗
94. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.09010.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.090 ↗
95. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.02310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.10.023 ↗
96. Hari, N.; Nair, A. J. Development and Characterization of Chitosan-Based Antimicrobial Films Incorporated with Streptomycin Loaded Starch Nanoparticles. New Horiz. Transl. Med. 2016, 3, 22–29.
97. 10.1038/s41598-021-82963-110.1038/s41598-021-82963-1 ↗
98. Maulida, H. N.; Hikmawati, D.; Budiatin, A. S. Injectable Bone Substitute Paste Based on Hydroxyapatite, Gelatin and Streptomycin for Spinal Tuberculosis. J. Spine. 2015, 4, 4–7.
99. 10.33762/bvetr.2016.12430110.33762/bvetr.2016.124301 ↗
100. 10.1208/s12249-010-9474-010.1208/s12249-010-9474-0 ↗