Next Article in Journal
Brain Microvascular Endothelial Cell-Derived Exosomes Protect Neurons from Ischemia–Reperfusion Injury in Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Speciation Analysis Highlights the Interactions of Auranofin with the Cytoskeleton Proteins of Lung Cancer Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceuticals
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/ph15101286
pharmaceuticals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Nanotechnology-Based Dressings for Wound Management

by
Janaína A. Ataide
1,2,
Beatriz Zanchetta
1,
Érica M. Santos
3,
Ana Laura M. Fava
1,
Thais F. R. Alves
4,
Letícia C. Cefali
5,6,
Marco V. Chaud
4,
Laura Oliveira-Nascimento
3,
Eliana B. Souto
2,7,8,* and
Priscila G. Mazzola
3,*
1
School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas 13083-888, Brazil
2
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Coimbra (UC), Coimbra 3000-548, Portugal
3
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas 13083-871, Brazil
4
Laboratory of Biomaterials and Nanotechnology, University of Sorocaba (UNISO), Sorocaba 18023-000, Brazil
5
Institute of Biology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas 13083-862, Brazil
6
Center for Biological and Health Sciences, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, Sao Paulo 01302-907, Brazil
7
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, No. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal
8
REQUIMTE/UCIBIO, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, nº. 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15(10), 1286; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15101286
Submission received: 4 August 2022 / Revised: 13 October 2022 / Accepted: 14 October 2022 / Published: 19 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pharmaceutical Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wound healing is known to be a complicated and intricate process and commonly classified as chronic or acute. Patients with chronic wounds are of public health concern, and require more attention onto skin lesions, including atopic dermatitis. Despite being a natural process, healing can be impaired by existing chronic de diseases such as diabetes, for example. Recently, wound dressings based in nanotechnology systems have emerged as a viable option to improve the healing process. Current advances in nanotechnology-based systems to release growth factors and bioactive agents represent a great opportunity to develop new therapies for wound treatments. It is essential that healthcare professionals understand the key processes involved in the healing cascade, to maximize care with these patients and minimize the undesirable outcomes of non-healing wounds. Therefore, this review aims to summarize the healing process phases and provide a general overview of dressings based in nanotechnology using biomaterials for the release of active agents in wound site.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The formation of a wound is the result of a disruption of skin integrity, or mucosal surfaces, or organ tissue [1], that have a common repair mechanism despite varying types of skin injury. Wound healing is a regular biological process in the human body, once human skin can promote self-regeneration after damage [2,3].
Despite being natural process, healing comprises a cascade of physiological events [4], with intricate nature, which makes it remarkable how often it occurs without complications [1].
However, this body capacity is dependent on many known factors, such as patient’s underlying health and nutritional status [5], and can be compromised under specific conditions, such as diabetes, non-healing ulcers, extensive skin loss, and deep burns [3,6]. An inappropriate healing process leads to a chronic wound state, with increased infection risk, affecting patient’s health and quality of life [2]. Chronic wounds are also associated with potential morbidity and mortality as well as poor cosmetic outcome [1,7].
Although it is difficult to quantify the economic effects of chronic wounds, some estimations have been performed. In the USA, it is estimated that wound related problems incur an annual expenditure exceeding one billion dollars [1,8]. A more recent study showed that chronic wounds represent a significant cost to self-funded individuals in Australia, and participants in this study spent on average more than 2000 Australian dollars only on wound dressings [9]. Therefore, to minimize patient morbidity and optimize costs, it is essential that healthcare professionals understand the key physiological processes involved in healing [1].
Thus, wound treatment should enhance natural wound healing process, which might require dressings. The development of new technologies can guarantee an effective and efficient healing, thus reducing healing time and recurrence [10]. Materials used for wound dressing should enable all phases of wound healing process, as well as protecting the wound from infection and excessive moisture loss [11].
Nowadays, contamination is the most challenging subject in wound care. To overcome the problem, researches have been intensified and antimicrobial wound dressings have demonstrated promising results in prevention of contamination [12]. Those dressings were designed in various forms using different biomaterials [13]. Among the available dressings, hydrogels have gained considerable attention owing to their properties, and more importantly, easy wound management. Pinese, et al. [14] classified as “smart dressing” the dressings that combine this physical function, wound healing properties, with other substances, such as anti-inflammatory [15], antimicrobial [14,16], bioactivities [17,18], or growth factor [10,17].
The development of nanotechnology-based systems has aroused great interest, mainly for biomedical and pharmaceutical applications for preventing or treating diseases, including wound healing [19,20,21]. Besides nanoparticles, nanotechnology-based delivery systems also include nanofibers, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, and more recently nanohybrids, which are a combination of different nanotechnological systems [22,23]. When materials are decreased to a nanometric size, their surface area and ratio surface area to volume dramatically increase, leading to advanced physicochemical properties [19]. Therefore, nanomaterials can act in wound healing by carrying and delivering therapeutic agents in the wound bead or due to their inherent properties [20].
Thus, this review aims to summarize relevant and overlapping phases of the healing process and provide a general overview of dressings based in nanotechnology using biomaterials for the release of active agents in the wound site.

2. Physiology of Wound Healing

According to the Wound Healing Society, a wound is the disarrangement of natural anatomic structure and function [24] that can be classified as acute or chronic. Acute wounds are typically tissue injuries that heal within the expected period. On the other hand, chronic wounds are tissue lesions that heal slowly due to repeated tissue damage and/or other patient’s pathophysiology that interferes with expected timeline or healing cascade [4,24].
Healing initiates in response to an injury, with the aim to restore the function and integrity of damaged tissue, and consequently homeostasis [25,26,27,28,29]. The Wound Healing Society defines it as an intricate, dynamic sequence that ends in restoring anatomic continuity as well as function [24]. The normal process (Figure 1) comprises four overlapping phases [4,27,30,31], regulated by cellular, humoral, and molecular mechanisms [29], which will be described hereafter.
Complete wound healing is only possible when all stages occur in the correct sequence, at the specific time, and immunological/biological systems participate in a coordinated way [3,32,33]. In the first three weeks of the healing process, wounds gain only about 20% of skin final strength [4]. Tensile strength could increase from about 20% to a maximum of 70–80% during remodelling phase [34]. Therefore, although the skin appears intact, the tissue underneath is still vulnerable to damage as it passes through the final stages of wound healing [4,29,35].
The strength increase in the final healing stage is due to a slower rate of collagen deposition and, more importantly, to collagen reshaping with the formation of larger bundles of collagen and an increase in intermolecular crosslinks [36]. However, wounds never reach the same breaking strength (the stress at which skin breaks) as uninjured skin. At maximum strength, healed skin would only reach about 80% of original tensile strength [37,38,39].
Not only tensile strength, but certain skin components also never fully recover after wound closure. This is the case of subepidermal appendages as hair follicles and sweat glands, that could not heal or grow back after serious injury. The resulting scar epidermis after healing differs from non-injured skin due to the lack of rete pegs, which are normally anchored in the underlying connective tissue matrix and are responsible for tight connections between the epidermis and dermis [29,40]. Hypertrophic scars and keloids may also occur due to excessive scarring [41].
The wounds generally heal without issues. However, some factors (hypoxia, infection, excessive edema and foreign bodies, for example) interrupt the healing cascade, leading to a chronic wound by establishing a cycle of hypoxia, inflammation, necrosis and infection [42]. Studies focusing on chronic wound treatment aim at strategies to enhance wound healing. Moreover, the development of wound dressing has gained a huge academic and clinical impact [12,17,43].

3. Dressing for Wound Treatment

In 1962, Winter concluded that moisturized wounds in piglet skin epithelizes two times faster than air exposed wounds [44]. Since then, much has been learned about wound healing mechanisms and factors that affect them [45,46,47,48], dramatically expanding dressing practices. Over the past years, wound dressings developed from crude applications of natural products, including plant herbs, animal fat, and honey, to tissue engineered scaffolds [49], and more than 3000 products have been developed aiming to treat different wound types and targeting different points of the healing cascade [50].
Nowadays, it is known that this physiological process can be accelerated and enhanced by the use of dressing techniques, products, and actives [11,31,45]. Wound management, then, should be used to avoid complications and improve survival of patients with major chronic wounds and burns by decreasing sepsis events [48,51,52]. In a more specific definition, the main functions of a dressing are to prevent bacterial contamination, absorb exudate, and improve wound healing with more rapid reepithelization [14,53].

3.1. Dressing’s Characteristics

In the medical community, there is a consensus that to accelerate wound healing process, an ideal wound dressing should present specific characteristics, such as biocompatibility, adequate water vapor permeability, retain moisture to help wound healing, and provide an antibacterial environment [17,54,55,56]. As a result, dressings should also control tissue dehydration, while removing excess exudate without affecting the healing process.
Some authors pointed out some characteristics of an ideal wound dressing material. Those characteristics include: keep the local environment moisturized; have good gas permeability; remove excess exudates; protect wound from exterior contaminations; stop wound desiccation; reduce the tissue necrosis; stimulate new tissue formation; mechanically protect the wound; be easily and comfortably removable, non-toxic, non-allergic, biocompatible, biodegradable, and elastic; reduce pain around wound; not be costly, i.e., commercially viable; and easily sterilized [7,30,53,57,58].

3.2. Advanced Therapeutic Dressings

Dressing products can be classified using different criteria depending on their function, employed material used in the production, dressing physical form, and their contact with wound surface, among others [49]. They can be also classified as traditional and modern wound dressings [49,50,59].
Even though traditional wound dressings are less widely used nowadays, they were commonly used in the past and still provide benefits in certain clinical conditions [49]. Gauze is the most popular of the first generation of conventional wound dressings. However, this type of dressing has many disadvantages in comparison with the newer dressing categories. The main disadvantages that can be highlighted include adhesion on the wound surface, painful upon removal, and extravasation of exudate. Thus, this dressing is inefficient to promote healing and avoid bacterial contamination [30,60,61,62].
On the other hand, modern wound dressings have been developed to facilitate wound and not only to cover it [50], and thus it should retain and create a moist environment in wound site [49]. Modern dressings can be divided into passive, interactive, and biological [50].
Similar to traditional dressings, passive dressings are used to cover the wound, however they are non-occlusive [50]. Most modern products are classified as interactive dressings, and their main characteristic is to interact with the wound environment, providing optimal conditions [59]. This second class of materials are semi-occlusive or occlusive, and they are designed to close and promote the restoration of skin function, also acting as a barrier to microorganism contamination [50].
More recently, attention was directed to biological dressings, especially those containing bioactive agents as growth factors [10,14,17,18,33,61]. Biological dressings are manufactured from biomaterials, which play important roles in the wound healing process. These dressings are known for their biocompatibility, biodegradability, and non-toxic nature [49,50].

3.3. Biomaterials Used in the Development of Wound Dressings

Biomaterials have a wide variety of interesting characteristics for development of dressings such as biocompatibility and biodegradability, controlled release, high drug-loading and special mechanical properties [17,63]. The choice of biocompatible materials to produce wound dressings is related to the functions and/or specific properties of these materials [49,50].
Natural or synthetic new biodegradable materials have been used for many applications, such as food and cosmetic/pharmaceutical industries, biosensor design and wound dressings. Chitosan, silk fibroin, starch, phospholipids, cellulose, chitin, alginate, gelatin, collagen, natural rubber, hyaluronic acid, and carrageenan composites or blends are some examples of these materials [50,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74].
Although natural polymers are the most used ones, synthetic polymers have also gained more attention because they exhibit better mechanical properties and have the advantage of easily control physicochemical properties. Among them, polylactic acid (PLA), poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), polyglicolic acid (PGA), as well as their combinations, are the most used synthetic polymers. Moreover, some of these polymers have a great biocompatibility and formulations that include both natural and synthetic polymers present an interesting approach to wound dressing development [17,63,75].
Interactive and biological dressings can be designed in different pharmaceutical forms, such as hydrogels, films, foams, sponges, hydrocolloids, hydrofiber and hydrofilms, which have been previously reviewed [50,59,76,77,78]. Those dressing definitions and main characteristics are summarised in Table 1. In recent literature, biomaterials and their different forms of application have been already reviewed by [79,80,81], as illustrated in Figure 2.

3.4. Nanotechnology-Based Delivery Systems for Wound Healing

Nanotechnology is applied in various medical therapies, including the treatment of different types of wounds [19,89]. In recent years, nanotechnology platforms have emerged and nanotechnology-based wound healing therapies are currently under investigation [90]. Nanotechnology platforms, mainly nanoparticles, have been used as novel therapeutic materials to accelerate the wound healing process [91]. Noteworthy, besides the nanoparticles and liposomes, hydrofibers (nanofibers), hydrogel, and hydrocolloids are also classified as nanotechnology-based delivery systems. Currently, hybrid formulations, also called nanohybrid, have shown promising ability to accelerate the wound healing process. Nanohybrid can be defined as a combination of different nanotechnology-based delivery systems, and a classic example is the hydrogel composed of nanoparticles loaded with pharmacological moieties [22,23]. Nanoparticles, polymeric nanofibers, and nanohybrids are discussed in the following sections, and Table 2 summarizes their preparation process.
In most cases, nanotechnology-based dressings are used to deliver actives to the wound bead, and then the mechanism by which wound healing is accelerated is dependent on the agent mechanism [19,20,21]. However, reducing the size of materials to the nanoscale leads to changes in their physicochemical properties, which can also influence and accelerate the healing process. Some characteristics that can influence wound healing are biocompatibility, biodegradability, stability, size, as well as surface functionalization and charge [20]. Besides them, other possible mechanisms of how nanotechnology-based dressings can accelerate wound healing [19,104] are shown in Figure 3.

3.4.1. Nanoparticles

Various materials (i.e., polymers, lipids, inorganic materials and their combinations) were used to produce a myriad of nanoparticles with desired physicochemical properties and biological functions [91]. Moreover, nanoparticles have been extensively studied for delivery of a variety range of therapeutic agents, including antibiotics, targeted in treating skin inflammatory diseases [112].
Nanoparticles emerged as a promising strategy to minimize microbial resistance, due their ability to enhance the antimicrobial properties [13], for example it is known that silver nanoparticles demonstrate excellent bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities [19]. Naraginti et al. [92] evaluated the in vivo activity of gold and silver nanoparticles in wound healing. The results show a considerable reduction of healing period, which can be assigned to their antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties.
Silver nanoparticles or nanoparticles containing silver have also been studied for wound healing applications [105]. Cotton dress fabrics saturated with silver nanoparticles were compared with fabrics saturated with commercial ointment in the healing of rats’ burn wounds. Nanoparticle fabrics showed a slightly greater healing efficacy, with higher wound contraction area and better fibril alignments in repaired skin [94].
Zinc oxide nanoparticles are known for their antibacterial effect [93,105,113], in vitro adhesion between cells and tissues, and pro-angiogenic properties [95,114,115]. Thus, they have been applied to different materials and formulations, aiming the development of wound healing dressings [106,107,109,111].
Polymeric nanoparticles provide a controlled release of the encapsulated compounds used for wound healing applications [10]. Chitosan nanoparticles were used as drug carriers for silver sulfadiazine, presenting continuous delivery of antibiotic over 24 h, which was higher than the delivery of commercial product (two hours). It also presented proven effectivity for Gram-positive (Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) bacteria and Candida albicans on an infected wound [96]. Chitosan has also been used to encapsulate bromelain, a proteolytic enzyme that can be used in wound debridement, aiming to enhance its stability [97,98,99].
Among lipid nanoparticles, liposomes present the ability to increase drug accumulation in the skin, which contributes for wound healing and atopic dermatitis [10,116,117]. Phospholipids are commonly used to develop liposomes and lipid nanoparticles. Lipids exhibit biocompatibility and biodegradability, controlled release, and high drug loading [118,119]. They have the main function of facilitating drug transport due to their ability to fluidize skin lipids [120]. Phospholipids, cholesterol, mono-, di- and triglycerides, fatty acids, waxes, and steroids are the most common lipids used in liposomes development. Surfactants such as, poloxamers and polysorbates can be used to enhance formulations stability [17]. Rosseto et al. [100] developed lipid nanoparticles to deliver propolis. In this study, nanoparticles loading propolis were administered in wounded skin and wound closure was quantified, confirming propolis potential in accelerating healing process after 15 days.
As demonstrated above, nanoparticles have several advantages, in addition to high carrier capacity, high stability, ability to incorporate both hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials, ability to use a variety of delivery methods [121], biocompatibility and skin tolerability [122], biodegradability, low toxicity [123], and low irritancy [124]. Although there are some disadvantages that may vary according to the type of nanoparticle. For example, the presence of permeation enhancers in nanoemulsions may compromise the integrity of the stratum corneum’s lipids [125], in addition to the difficulties of removing organic solvents from these compositions [124]. Another example is stability issues, difficulties with scale-up process [126], and high cost [127] for liposomes preparations.

3.4.2. Polymeric Nanofibers

Different polymers can be used to produce fibers in the nanometric range and they are called nanofibers, presenting different final properties and potential applications. Examples of natural or synthetic polymers include collagen, cellulose, silk fibroin, poly(lactic acid) (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), polyurethane (PU), and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA). Nanofiber dressings could be an alternative for chronic wounds by replacing natural provisional extracellular matrix until it is regenerated [17]. They also act in preventing bacterial contamination in the wounded area, forming a physical barrier, hindering microorganisms invasion [55]. Synthetic or natural active agents can be incorporated in nanofibers, enhancing its activity [128,129,130]. Aloe vera L. and recombinant human epidermal growth factor, for example were incorporated and results indicated that high concentrations of this active might be a suitable strategy for chronic wounds treatment [17].
Sangnim et al. [104] developed a clindamycin-loaded polymeric nanofiber patch composed of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and tamarind seed gum. Authors studied different concentrations of PVA, gum, and model drug to produce the polymeric nanofibers, adjusting the processing parameter in each case. Continuous fibers were obtained when using PVA concentrations between 10% and 15% (w/v), and fiber diameter as proportional to PVA concentration and inversely proportional to applied voltage (diameter decreased with lower concentrations and higher voltages). Clindamycin-loaded fibers inhibited Staphylococcus aureus growth more effectively than commercial clindamycin gel product. This nanofiber was later improved using Eudragit® S100 to form a bilayer patch, enhancing its durability and easiness of use [103].
Another example of polymeric nanofibers is bacterial nanocellulose, which has been studied for medical purposes, including its application in wound healing, due to its favorable properties [131]. Bromelain was also incorporated in bacterial nanocellulose membranes, leading to a system with higher antibacterial activity [12]. Nisin, an antimicrobial peptide synthetized by several microorganisms, was also incorporated in bacterial nanocellulose membranes, forming a stable system with antioxidant and antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [101,102].
Among the advantages of polymeric nanofibers, their high protein adsorption rates, a crucial modulator of cell attachment to a biomaterial surface [132], similarity of membranes to the natural extracellular matrix permitting cell penetration, differentiation, and adhesion [133], good flexibility [134], high surface area to volume ratio favoring cell attachment [135], and drug loading stand out. One production method, self-assembly, has some limitations, such as high cost, low productivity, and complicated processing [136].

3.4.3. Nanohybrids

Nanohybrids represent a combination of multiple nanostructures into one cohesive structure [23]. These could be achieved by combining nanoparticles and liposomes, or even nanoparticles in hydrogels or nanofibers.
Polyvinyl(alcohol)/chitosan/nano zinc oxide nanocomposite hydrogels were investigated regarding their potential use as dressing for wounds. In this case, hydrogel development parameters were studied to optimize conditions. Other important parameters, such as morphology, mechanical properties, toxicity, protein absorption, antibacterial activity, and in vitro wound healing, were analysed. The resultant hydrogel presented antibacterial properties, was biocompatible, showed no toxicity and in vitro potential to treat wounds [108].
Ding et al. [56] developed a new hydrogel material composed with chitosan crosslinked with genipin and Bletilla striata polysaccharide, which presented better properties than chitosan crosslinked only with genipin. However, this material did not show good antibacterial activity, and to overcome this issue, a nanohybrid was proposed by the incorporation of silver nanoparticles in the final formulation. The nanohybrid dressing provided gas permeation and water retention ability, supressed bacterial proliferation, and enhanced fibroblasts proliferation, showing great potential to be further to be used to promote wound healing.
Bacterial nanocellulose membranes have also been studied for the impregnation of nanoparticles to form nanohybrid systems [109,110]. Zinc oxide nanoparticles were successfully impregnated in bacterial cellulose membranes, and exhibited antimicrobial activity against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and C. freundii. In a burn mice model, bacterial cellulose containing zinc oxide nanocomposites showed significant healing activity, with fine tissue regeneration proven by histological analyses when compared to bacterial cellulose [109]. In another study, bacterial nanocellulose membranes were immersed in a silver nitrate solution, with the posterior reduction of silver ion to the metallic silver nanoparticles. Authors showed that nanoparticle-impregnated membranes exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, which can contaminate wound beads [110].
The benefits of nanohybrids include improved esthetic qualities, easy handling, low polymerization shrinkage, great polishability and durability [137,138,139], and the fact that they can combine different treatments to boost therapy effectiveness [23]. However, more studies on their toxicity are still needed [140].

4. Conclusions

Wound healing is a well-orchestrated process comprising four overlapping and dependent phases, which are regulated by cellular, humoral, and molecular mechanisms. This complex and intricate sequence occurs naturally but could be enhanced and accelerated by dressing techniques, products, and actives. Wound management has proven to avoid non-healing complications, and the use of topical chemotherapy has improved the survival of patients with major chronic wounds and burns. Over the past years, dressings have developed with the arrival of new alternatives, including mixtures of different polymers and nanotechnology tools to create improved materials while guaranteeing an optimal environment. Improvements in hydrogel manufacturing along with nanotechnology can provide new, versatile, and innovative technologies for the future of wound dressing and wound repair. Therefore, besides focusing on the enhancement of nanotechnology-dressings characteristics, researchers should consider the development of cost-effective products, aiming towards the improvement of patients’ quality of life and expenditure reduction.

Author Contributions

J.A.A. wrote the review with help from B.Z., É.M.S. and A.L.M.F.; T.F.R.A., L.C.C.; M.V.C., L.O.-N., E.B.S. and P.G.M. reviewed the text; L.O.-N., E.B.S. and P.G.M. helped to structure the review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), grant numbers: 2015/15068-5, 2016/03444-5, 2017/05275-9, 2018/07707-6 and 2020/11333-4; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES), process numbers: 88887.489117/2020-00 and 33003017023p6; and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), process numbers: 404229/2016-6, 301436/2017-7 and 164779/2020-5.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the use of Servier Medical Art as Graphical Abstract and Figure 1 were partially done and modified using Servier Medical Art by Servier (http://smart.servier.com/, accessed on 1 August 2022), licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, accessed on 1 August 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Young, A.; McNaught, C.-E. The physiology of wound healing. Surgery 2011, 29, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pereira, R.F.; Bártolo, P.J. Traditional Therapies for Skin Wound Healing. Adv. Wound Care 2016, 5, 208–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Guo, S.; DiPietro, L.A. Factors Affecting Wound Healing. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Strodtbeck, F. Physiology of wound healing. Newborn Infant Nurs. Rev. 2001, 1, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Beldon, P. Basic science of wound healing. Surgery 2010, 28, 409–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Groeber, F.; Holeiter, M.; Hampel, M.; Hinderer, S.; Schenke-Layland, K. Skin tissue engineering—In vivo and in vitro applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2011, 63, 352–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abdelrahman, T.; Newton, H. Wound dressings: Principles and practice. Surgery 2011, 29, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ueno, C.; Hunt, T.K.; Hopf, H.W. Using Physiology to Improve Surgical Wound Outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006, 117, 59S–71S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kapp, S.; Santamaria, N. The financial and quality-of-life cost to patients living with a chronic wound in the community. Int. Wound J. 2017, 14, 1108–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garcia-Orue, I.; Pedraz, J.L.; Hernandez, R.M.; Igartua, M. Nanotechnology-based delivery systems to release growth factors and other endogenous molecules for chronic wound healing. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2017, 42, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wattanakaroon, W.; Akanitkul, P.; Kaowkanya, W.; Phoudee, W. Albumin-natural rubber latex composite as a dermal wound dressing. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4, 6633–6640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ataide, J.A.; de Carvalho, N.M.; Rebelo, M.D.A.; Chaud, M.V.; Grotto, D.; Gerenutti, M.; Rai, M.; Mazzola, P.G.; Jozala, A.F. Bacterial Nanocellulose Loaded with Bromelain: Assessment of Antimicrobial, Antioxidant and Physical-Chemical Properties. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 18031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Simões, D.; Miguel, S.P.; Ribeiro, M.P.; Coutinho, P.; Mendonça, A.G.; Correia, I.J. Recent advances on antimicrobial wound dressing: A review. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2018, 127, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pinese, C.; Jebors, S.; Stoebner, P.E.; Humblot, V.; Verdié, P.; Causse, L.; Garric, X.; Taillades, H.; Martinez, J.; Mehdi, A.; et al. Bioactive peptides grafted silicone dressings: A simple and specific method. Mater. Today Chem. 2017, 4, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Andreu, V.; Mendoza, G.; Arruebo, M.; Irusta, S. Smart Dressings Based on Nanostructured Fibers Containing Natural Origin Antimicrobial, Anti-Inflammatory, and Regenerative Compounds. Materials 2015, 8, 5154–5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aruan, N.M.; Sriyanti, I.; Edikresnha, D.; Suciati, T.; Munir, M.M.; Khairurrijal. Polyvinyl Alcohol/Soursop Leaves Extract Composite Nanofibers Synthesized Using Electrospinning Technique and their Potential as Antibacterial Wound Dressing. Procedia Eng. 2017, 170, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Garcia-Orue, I.; Gainza, G.; Gutierrez, F.B.; Aguirre, J.J.; Evora, C.; Pedraz, J.L.; Hernandez, R.M.; Delgado, A.; Igartua, M. Novel nanofibrous dressings containing rhEGF and Aloe vera for wound healing applications. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 523, 556–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tummalapalli, M.; Berthet, M.; Verrier, B.; Deopura, B.L.; Alam, M.S.; Gupta, B. Composite wound dressings of pectin and gelatin with aloe vera and curcumin as bioactive agents. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 82, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rajendran, N.K.; Kumar, S.S.D.; Houreld, N.N.; Abrahamse, H. A review on nanoparticle based treatment for wound healing. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2018, 44, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stoica, A.E.; Chircov, C.; Grumezescu, A.M. Nanomaterials for Wound Dressings: An Up-to-Date Overview. Molecules 2020, 25, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kalashnikova, I.; Das, S.; Seal, S. Nanomaterials for wound healing: Scope and advancement. Nanomedicine 2015, 10, 2593–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hussain, Z.; Thu, H.E.; Amjad, M.W.; Hussain, F.; Ahmed, T.A.; Khan, S. Exploring recent developments to improve antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial efficacy of curcumin: A review of new trends and future perspectives. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 77, 1316–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. VanDyke, D.; Kyriacopulos, P.; Yassini, B.; Wright, A.; Burkhart, E.; Jacek, S.; Pratt, M.; Peterson, C.R.; Rai, P. Nanoparticle Based Combination Treatments for Targeting Multiple Hallmarks of Cancer. Int. J. Nano Stud. Technol. 2016, S4, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lazarus, G.S.; Cooper, D.M.; Knighton, D.R.; Margolis, D.J.; Pecoraro, R.E.; Rodeheaver, G.; Robson, M.C. Definitions and guidelines for assessment of wounds and evaluation of healing. Arch. Dermatol. 1994, 130, 489–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Gottrup, F.; Agren, M.S.; Karlsmark, T. Models for use in wound healing research: A survey focusing on in vitro and in vivo adult soft tissue. Wound Repair Regen. Off. Publ. Wound Heal. Soc. Eur. Tissue Repair Soc. 2000, 8, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Martin, P. Wound healing—Aiming for perfect skin regeneration. Science 1997, 276, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Schmidt, C.; Fronza, M.; Goettert, M.; Geller, F.; Luik, S.; Flores, E.M.M.; Bittencourt, C.F.; Zanetti, G.D.; Heinzmann, B.M.; Laufer, S.; et al. Biological studies on Brazilian plants used in wound healing. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 122, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gurtner, G.C.; Werner, S.; Barrandon, Y.; Longaker, M.T. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature 2008, 453, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reinke, J.M.; Sorg, H. Wound Repair and Regeneration. Eur. Surg. Res. 2012, 49, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fonder, M.A.; Lazarus, G.S.; Cowan, D.A.; Aronson-Cook, B.; Kohli, A.R.; Mamelak, A.J. Treating the chronic wound: A practical approach to the care of nonhealing wounds and wound care dressings. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2008, 58, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumar, B.; Vijayakumar, M.; Govindarajan, R.; Pushpangadan, P. Ethnopharmacological approaches to wound healing—Exploring medicinal plants of India. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2007, 114, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Morton, L.M.; Phillips, T.J. Wound healing and treating wounds: Differential diagnosis and evaluation of chronic wounds. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2016, 74, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Oryan, A.; Alemzadeh, E. Effects of insulin on wound healing: A review of animal and human evidences. Life Sci. 2017, 174, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Williamson, D.; Harding, K. Wound healing. Medicine 2004, 32, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bryant, R.A.; Nix, D.P. Acute and Chronic Wounds: Current Management Concepts, 5th ed.; Mosby: St Louis, MO, USA, 2016; p. 648. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bailey, A.J.; Bazin, S.; Sims, T.J.; Le Lous, M.; Nicoletis, C.; Delaunay, A. Characterization of the collagen of human hypertrophic and normal scars. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Protein Struct. 1975, 405, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schilling, J.A. Wound healing. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 1976, 56, 859–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Levenson, S.M.; Geever, E.F.; Crowley, L.V.; Oates, J.F.; Berard, C.W.; Rosen, H. Healing of Rat Skin Wounds. Ann. Surg. 1965, 161, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Landén, N.X.; Li, D.; Ståhle, M. Transition from inflammation to proliferation: A critical step during wound healing. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2016, 73, 3861–3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Robson, M.C.; Steed, D.L.; Franz, M.G. Wound healing: Biologic features and approaches to maximize healing trajectories. Curr. Probl. Surg. 2001, 38, 72–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Werner, S.; Grose, R. Regulation of Wound Healing by Growth Factors and Cytokines. Physiol. Rev. 2003, 83, 835–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Frykberg, R.G.; Banks, J. Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds. Adv. Wound Care 2015, 4, 560–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Choi, J.U.; Lee, S.W.; Pangeni, R.; Byun, Y.; Yoon, I.-S.; Park, J.W. Preparation and in vivo evaluation of cationic elastic liposomes comprising highly skin-permeable growth factors combined with hyaluronic acid for enhanced diabetic wound-healing therapy. Acta Biomater. 2017, 57, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Winter, G.D. Formation of the Scab and the Rate of Epithelization of Superficial Wounds in the Skin of the Young Domestic Pig. Nature 1962, 193, 293–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cooper, D.M. Optimizing wound healing. A practice within nursing’s domain. Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 1990, 25, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cuzzell, J.Z.; Stotts, N.A. Wound care. Trial & error yields to knowledge. Am. J. Nurs. 1990, 90, 53–60, 63. [Google Scholar]
  47. Winter, G.D.; Scales, J.T. Effect of Air Drying and Dressings on the Surface of a Wound. Nature 1963, 197, 91–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Salas Campos, L.; Fernandes Mansilla, M.; Martinez de la Chica, A.M. Topical chemotherapy for the treatment of burns. Rev. Enferm. 2005, 28, 67–70. [Google Scholar]
  49. Boateng, J.S.; Matthews, K.H.; Stevens, H.N.E.; Eccleston, G.M. Wound healing dressings and drug delivery systems: A review. J. Pharm. Sci. 2008, 97, 2892–2923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dhivya, S.; Padma, V.V.; Santhini, E. Wound dressings—A review. BioMedicine 2015, 5, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fraser, J.F.; Cuttle, L.; Kempf, M.; Kimble, R.M. Cytotoxicity of topical antimicrobial agents used in burn wounds in Australasia. ANZ J. Surg. 2004, 74, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Atiyeh, B.S.; Costagliola, M.; Hayek, S.N.; Dibo, S.A. Effect of silver on burn wound infection control and healing: Review of the literature. Burns 2007, 33, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Vowden, K.; Vowden, P. Wound dressings: Principles and practice. Surgery 2017, 35, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jayakumar, R.; Prabaharan, M.; Sudheesh Kumar, P.T.; Nair, S.V.; Tamura, H. Biomaterials based on chitin and chitosan in wound dressing applications. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29, 322–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Abrigo, M.; McArthur, S.L.; Kingshott, P. Electrospun Nanofibers as Dressings for Chronic Wound Care: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Macromol. Biosci. 2014, 14, 772–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ding, L.; Shan, X.; Zhao, X.; Zha, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Cai, C.; Wang, X.; Li, G.; Hao, J.; et al. Spongy bilayer dressing composed of chitosan–Ag nanoparticles and chitosan–Bletilla striata polysaccharide for wound healing applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 157, 1538–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Seaman, S. Dressing selection in chronic wound management. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2002, 92, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hajská, M.; Dragúňová, J.; Koller, J. Cytotoxicity testing of burn wound dressings: First results. Cell Tissue Bank. 2017, 18, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sarabahi, S. Recent advances in topical wound care. Indian J. Plast. Surg. Off. Publ. Assoc. Plast. Surg. India 2012, 45, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jin, S.G.; Kim, K.S.; Yousaf, A.M.; Kim, D.W.; Jang, S.W.; Son, M.-W.; Kim, Y.H.; Yong, C.S.; Kim, J.O.; Choi, H.-G. Mechanical properties and in vivo healing evaluation of a novel Centella asiatica-loaded hydrocolloid wound dressing. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 490, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kamoun, E.A.; Kenawy, E.-R.S.; Chen, X. A review on polymeric hydrogel membranes for wound dressing applications: PVA-based hydrogel dressings. J. Adv. Res. 2017, 8, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mulholland, E.J.; Dunne, N.; McCarthy, H.O. MicroRNA as Therapeutic Targets for Chronic Wound Healing. Mol. Ther.-Nucleic Acids 2017, 8, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Garg, T.; Rath, G.; Goyal, A.K. Biomaterials-based nanofiber scaffold: Targeted and controlled carrier for cell and drug delivery. J. Drug Target. 2015, 23, 202–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ahmed, S.; Ikram, S. Chitosan Based Scaffolds and Their Applications in Wound Healing. Achiev. Life Sci. 2016, 10, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ganesan, P. Natural and bio polymer curative films for wound dressing medical applications. Wound Med. 2017, 18, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Khan, M.I.H.; Islam, J.M.M.; Kabir, W.; Rahman, A.; Mizan, M.; Rahman, M.F.; Amin, J.; Khan, M.A. Development of hydrocolloid Bi-layer dressing with bio-adhesive and non-adhesive properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 69, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Karaki, N.; Aljawish, A.; Humeau, C.; Muniglia, L.; Jasniewski, J. Enzymatic modification of polysaccharides: Mechanisms, properties, and potential applications: A review. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2016, 90, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Singh, B.; Kumar, A. Radiation formation of functionalized polysaccharide-protein based skin mimicking semi- inter penetrating network for biomedical application. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 92, 1136–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lohani, A.; Singh, G.; Bhattacharya, S.S.; Rama Hegde, R.; Verma, A. Tailored-interpenetrating polymer network beads of κ-carrageenan and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose for controlled drug delivery. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2016, 31, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mogoşanu, G.D.; Grumezescu, A.M. Natural and synthetic polymers for wounds and burns dressing. Int. J. Pharm. 2014, 463, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tavakoli, J. Physico-mechanical, morphological and biomedical properties of a novel natural wound dressing material. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2017, 65, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tranquilan-Aranilla, C.; Barba, B.J.D.; Vista, J.R.M.; Abad, L.V. Hemostatic efficacy evaluation of radiation crosslinked carboxymethyl kappa-carrageenan and chitosan with varying degrees of substitution. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2016, 124, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zia, K.M.; Tabasum, S.; Nasif, M.; Sultan, N.; Aslam, N.; Noreen, A.; Zuber, M. A review on synthesis, properties and applications of natural polymer based carrageenan blends and composites. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 96, 282–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Miranda, O.J.; Srinivasan, G. Advanced trends in treatment of wounds. Curr. Sci. 2016, 111, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hazer, D.B.; Kılıçay, E.; Hazer, B. Poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate)s: Diversification and biomedical applications: A state of the art review. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2012, 32, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Broussard, K.C.; Powers, J.G. Wound Dressings: Selecting the Most Appropriate Type. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2013, 14, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Boateng, J.; Catanzano, O. Advanced Therapeutic Dressings for Effective Wound Healing—A Review. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 104, 3653–3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Barnea, Y.; Weiss, J.; Gur, E. A review of the applications of the hydrofiber dressing with silver (Aquacel Ag) in wound care. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2010, 6, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Kaur, G.; Narayanan, G.; Garg, D.; Sachdev, A.; Matai, I. Biomaterials-Based Regenerative Strategies for Skin Tissue Wound Healing. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2022, 5, 2069–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bianchera, A.; Catanzano, O.; Boateng, J.; Elviri, L. The place of biomaterials in wound healing. In Therapeutic Dressings and Wound Healing Applications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 337–366. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ijaola, A.O.; Akamo, D.O.; Damiri, F.; Akisin, C.J.; Bamidele, E.A.; Ajiboye, E.G.; Berrada, M.; Onyenokwe, V.O.; Yang, S.-Y.; Asmatulu, E. Polymeric biomaterials for wound healing applications: A comprehensive review. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2022, 33, 1998–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Momoh, F.U.; Boateng, J.S.; Richardson, S.C.W.; Chowdhry, B.Z.; Mitchell, J.C. Development and functional characterization of alginate dressing as potential protein delivery system for wound healing. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 81, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Duckworth, P.F.; Maddocks, S.E.; Rahatekar, S.S.; Barbour, M.E. Alginate films augmented with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate particles provide sustained antimicrobial properties for application in wound care. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2020, 31, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Zhao, X.; Liu, L.; An, T.; Xian, M.; Luckanagul, J.A.; Su, Z.; Lin, Y.; Wang, Q. A hydrogen sulfide-releasing alginate dressing for effective wound healing. Acta Biomater. 2020, 104, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Li, M.; Chen, J.; Shi, M.; Zhang, H.; Ma, P.X.; Guo, B. Electroactive anti-oxidant polyurethane elastomers with shape memory property as non-adherent wound dressing to enhance wound healing. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 375, 121999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liu, X.; Niu, Y.; Chen, K.C.; Chen, S. Rapid hemostatic and mild polyurethane-urea foam wound dressing for promoting wound healing. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 71, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Croisfelt, F.M.; Ataide, J.A.; Tundisi, L.L.; Cefali, L.C.; Rebelo, M.D.A.; Sánchez, J.L.D.; da Costa, T.G.; Lima, R.; Jozala, A.F.; Chaud, M.V.; et al. Characterization of PNIPAAm-co-AAm hydrogels for modified release of bromelain. Eur. Polym. J. 2018, 105, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jin, S.G.; Kim, K.S.; Kim, D.W.; Kim, D.S.; Seo, Y.G.; Go, T.G.; Youn, Y.S.; Kim, J.O.; Yong, C.S.; Choi, H.-G. Development of a novel sodium fusidate-loaded triple polymer hydrogel wound dressing: Mechanical properties and effects on wound repair. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 497, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, X.; Wong, K.K.Y. Application of nanomedicine in wound healing. In Nanotechnology in Dermatology; Nasir, A., Friedman, A., Wang, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 221–229. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hamdan, S.; Pastar, I.; Drakulich, S.; Dikici, E.; Tomic-Canic, M.; Deo, S.; Daunert, S. Nanotechnology-Driven Therapeutic Interventions in Wound Healing: Potential Uses and Applications. ACS Cent. Sci. 2017, 3, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, R.X.; Li, J.; Zhang, T.; Amini, M.A.; He, C.; Lu, B.; Ahmed, T.; Lip, H.; Rauth, A.M.; Wu, X.Y. Importance of integrating nanotechnology with pharmacology and physiology for innovative drug delivery and therapy—An illustration with firsthand examples. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2018, 39, 825–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Naraginti, S.; Kumari, P.L.; Das, R.K.; Sivakumar, A.; Patil, S.H.; Andhalkar, V.V. Amelioration of excision wounds by topical application of green synthesized, formulated silver and gold nanoparticles in albino Wistar rats. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 62, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. De Oliveira, D.M.; Menezes, D.B.; Andrade, L.R.; Lima, F.D.C.; Hollanda, L.; Zielinska, A.; Sanchez-Lopez, E.; Souto, E.B.; Severino, P. Silver nanoparticles obtained from Brazilian pepper extracts with synergistic anti-microbial effect: Production, characterization, hydrogel formulation, cell viability, and in vitro efficacy. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 2021, 26, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pannerselvam, B.; Dharmalingam Jothinathan, M.K.; Rajenderan, M.; Perumal, P.; Pudupalayam Thangavelu, K.; Kim, H.J.; Singh, V.; Rangarajulu, S.K. An in vitro study on the burn wound healing activity of cotton fabrics incorporated with phytosynthesized silver nanoparticles in male Wistar albino rats. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 100, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Raghupathi, K.R.; Koodali, R.T.; Manna, A.C. Size-Dependent Bacterial Growth Inhibition and Mechanism of Antibacterial Activity of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles. Langmuir 2011, 27, 4020–4028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. El-Feky, G.S.; Sharaf, S.S.; El Shafei, A.; Hegazy, A.A. Using chitosan nanoparticles as drug carriers for the development of a silver sulfadiazine wound dressing. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 158, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ataide, J.A.; Cefali, L.C.; Figueiredo, M.C.; Braga, L.E.D.O.; Ruiz, A.L.T.G.; Foglio, M.A.; Oliveira-Nascimento, L.; Mazzola, P.G. In vitro performance of free and encapsulated bromelain. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ataide, J.A.; Geraldes, D.C.; Gérios, E.F.; Bissaco, F.M.; Cefali, L.C.; Oliveira-Nascimento, L.; Mazzola, P.G. Freeze-dried chitosan nanoparticles to stabilize and deliver bromelain. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021, 61, 102225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ataide, J.A.; Gerios, E.F.; Cefali, L.C.; Fernandes, A.R.; Teixeira, M.D.C.; Ferreira, N.R.; Tambourgi, E.B.; Jozala, A.F.; Chaud, M.V.; Oliveira-Nascimento, L.; et al. Effect of Polysaccharide Sources on the Physicochemical Properties of Bromelain-Chitosan Nanoparticles. Polymers 2019, 11, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Rosseto, H.C.; Toledo, L.D.A.S.D.; Francisco, L.M.B.D.; Esposito, E.; Lim, Y.; Valacchi, G.; Cortesi, R.; Bruschi, M.L. Nanostructured lipid systems modified with waste material of propolis for wound healing: Design, in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2017, 158, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dos Santos, C.A.; dos Santos, G.R.; Soeiro, V.S.; dos Santos, J.R.; Rebelo, M.D.A.; Chaud, M.V.; Gerenutti, M.; Grotto, D.; Pandit, R.; Rai, M.; et al. Bacterial nanocellulose membranes combined with nisin: A strategy to prevent microbial growth. Cellulose 2018, 25, 6681–6689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Dos Santos, G.R.; Soeiro, V.S.; Talarico, C.F.; Ataide, J.A.; Lopes, A.M.; Mazzola, P.G.; Oliveira, T.J.; Oliveira Junior, J.M.; Grotto, D.; Jozala, A.F. Bacterial Cellulose Membranes as Carriers for Nisin: Incorporation, Antimicrobial Activity, Cytotoxicity and Morphology. Polymers 2022, 14, 3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Huanbutta, K.; Sittikijyothin, W.; Sangnim, T. Development and Characterization of Bilayer Wound Healing Patch Nanofiber Fabricated by Electrospinning. J. Nano Res. 2019, 59, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sangnim, T.; Limmatvapirat, S.; Nunthanid, J.; Sriamornsak, P.; Sittikijyothin, W.; Wannachaiyasit, S.; Huanbutta, K. Design and characterization of clindamycin-loaded nanofiber patches composed of polyvinyl alcohol and tamarind seed gum and fabricated by electrohydrodynamic atomization. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 13, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Diniz, F.R.; Maia, R.C.A.P.; Rannier Andrade, L.; Andrade, L.N.; Vinicius Chaud, M.; da Silva, C.F.; Corrêa, C.B.; de Albuquerque Junior, R.L.C.; Pereira da Costa, L.; Shin, S.R.; et al. Silver Nanoparticles-Composing Alginate/Gelatine Hydrogel Improves Wound Healing In Vivo. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kumar, P.T.S.; Lakshmanan, V.-K.; Anilkumar, T.V.; Ramya, C.; Reshmi, P.; Unnikrishnan, A.G.; Nair, S.V.; Jayakumar, R. Flexible and Microporous Chitosan Hydrogel/Nano ZnO Composite Bandages for Wound Dressing: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2012, 4, 2618–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kumar, P.T.S.; Lakshmanan, V.-K.; Raj, M.; Biswas, R.; Hiroshi, T.; Nair, S.V.; Jayakumar, R. Evaluation of Wound Healing Potential of β-Chitin Hydrogel/Nano Zinc Oxide Composite Bandage. Pharm. Res. 2013, 30, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Khorasani, M.T.; Joorabloo, A.; Adeli, H.; Mansoori-Moghadam, Z.; Moghaddam, A. Design and optimization of process parameters of polyvinyl (alcohol)/chitosan/nano zinc oxide hydrogels as wound healing materials. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 207, 542–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Khalid, A.; Khan, R.; Ul-Islam, M.; Khan, T.; Wahid, F. Bacterial cellulose-zinc oxide nanocomposites as a novel dressing system for burn wounds. Carbohydr. Polym. 2017, 164, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Maneerung, T.; Tokura, S.; Rujiravanit, R. Impregnation of silver nanoparticles into bacterial cellulose for antimicrobial wound dressing. Carbohydr. Polym. 2008, 72, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Augustine, R.; Malik, H.N.; Singhal, D.K.; Mukherjee, A.; Malakar, D.; Kalarikkal, N.; Thomas, S. Electrospun polycaprolactone/ZnO nanocomposite membranes as biomaterials with antibacterial and cell adhesion properties. J. Polym. Res. 2014, 21, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dhand, C.; Venkatesh, M.; Barathi, V.A.; Harini, S.; Bairagi, S.; Goh Tze Leng, E.; Muruganandham, N.; Low, K.Z.W.; Fazil, M.H.U.T.; Loh, X.J.; et al. Bio-inspired crosslinking and matrix-drug interactions for advanced wound dressings with long-term antimicrobial activity. Biomaterials 2017, 138, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sanchez-Lopez, E.; Gomes, D.; Esteruelas, G.; Bonilla, L.; Lopez-Machado, A.L.; Galindo, R.; Cano, A.; Espina, M.; Ettcheto, M.; Camins, A.; et al. Metal-Based Nanoparticles as Antimicrobial Agents: An Overview. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Barui, A.K.; Veeriah, V.; Mukherjee, S.; Manna, J.; Patel, A.K.; Patra, S.; Pal, K.; Murali, S.; Rana, R.K.; Chatterjee, S.; et al. Zinc oxide nanoflowers make new blood vessels. Nanoscale 2012, 4, 7861–7869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Gao, Y.; Han, Y.; Cui, M.; Tey, H.L.; Wang, L.-H.; Xu, C. ZnO nanoparticles as an antimicrobial tissue adhesive for skin wound closure. J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5, 4535–4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Souto, E.B.; Macedo, A.S.; Dias-Ferreira, J.; Cano, A.; Zielinska, A.; Matos, C.M. Elastic and Ultradeformable Liposomes for Transdermal Delivery of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Souto, E.B.; Doktorovova, S.; Zielinska, A.; Silva, A.M. Key production parameters for the development of solid lipid nanoparticles by high shear homogenization. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 2019, 24, 1181–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Doktorovova, S.; Kovacevic, A.B.; Garcia, M.L.; Souto, E.B. Preclinical safety of solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers: Current evidence from in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2016, 108, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Doktorovova, S.; Souto, E.B.; Silva, A.M. Nanotoxicology applied to solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers—A systematic review of in vitro data. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2014, 87, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jain, S.; Patel, N.; Shah, M.K.; Khatri, P.; Vora, N. Recent Advances in Lipid-Based Vesicles and Particulate Carriers for Topical and Transdermal Application. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 106, 423–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Gelperina, S.; Kisich, K.; Iseman, M.D.; Heifets, L. The potential advantages of nanoparticle drug delivery systems in chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 172, 1487–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Chantaburanan, T.; Teeranachaideekul, V.; Chantasart, D.; Jintapattanakit, A.; Junyaprasert, V.B. Effect of binary solid lipid matrix of wax and triglyceride on lipid crystallinity, drug-lipid interaction and drug release of ibuprofen-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) for dermal delivery. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 504, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ghasemiyeh, P.; Azadi, A.; Daneshamouz, S.; Mohammadi Samani, S. Cyproterone acetate-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs): Preparation and optimization. Trends Pharm. Sci. 2017, 3, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ghasemiyeh, P.; Mohammadi-Samani, S. Potential of Nanoparticles as Permeation Enhancers and Targeted Delivery Options for Skin: Advantages and Disadvantages. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2020, 14, 3271–3289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Abd, E.; Namjoshi, S.; Mohammed, Y.H.; Roberts, M.S.; Grice, J.E. Synergistic skin penetration enhancer and nanoemulsion formulations promote the human epidermal permeation of caffeine and naproxen. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 105, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Maghraby, G.M.E.; Williams, A.C.; Barry, B.W. Can drug-bearing liposomes penetrate intact skin? J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2006, 58, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Choi, M.; Maibach, H. Liposomes and niosomes as topical drug delivery systems. Skin Pharmacol. Physiol. 2005, 18, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Karuppuswamy, P.; Venugopal, J.R.; Navaneethan, B.; Laiva, A.L.; Sridhar, S.; Ramakrishna, S. Functionalized hybrid nanofibers to mimic native ECM for tissue engineering applications. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 322, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Bhaarathy, V.; Venugopal, J.; Gandhimathi, C.; Ponpandian, N.; Mangalaraj, D.; Ramakrishna, S. Biologically improved nanofibrous scaffolds for cardiac tissue engineering. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2014, 44, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Suganya, S.; Venugopal, J.; Ramakrishna, S.; Lakshmi, B.S.; Dev, V.R.G. Naturally derived biofunctional nanofibrous scaffold for skin tissue regeneration. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2014, 68, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Jozala, A.F.; de Lencastre-Novaes, L.C.; Lopes, A.M.; de Carvalho Santos-Ebinuma, V.; Mazzola, P.G.; Pessoa-Jr, A.; Grotto, D.; Gerenutti, M.; Chaud, M.V. Bacterial nanocellulose production and application: A 10-year overview. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 2063–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Woo, K.M.; Jun, J.-H.; Chen, V.J.; Seo, J.; Baek, J.-H.; Ryoo, H.-M.; Kim, G.-S.; Somerman, M.J.; Ma, P.X. Nano-fibrous scaffolding promotes osteoblast differentiation and biomineralization. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Dickinson, L.E.; Gerecht, S. Engineered biopolymeric scaffolds for chronic wound healing. Front. Physiol. 2016, 7, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Rošic, R.; Pelipenko, J.; Kristl, J.; Kocbek, P.; Baumgartner, S. Properties, engineering and applications of polymeric nanofibers: Current research and future advances. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 2012, 26, 417–425. [Google Scholar]
  135. Kwon, I.K.; Kidoaki, S.; Matsuda, T. Electrospun nano-to microfiber fabrics made of biodegradable copolyesters: Structural characteristics, mechanical properties and cell adhesion potential. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 3929–3939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Ma, Z.; Kotaki, M.; Inai, R.; Ramakrishna, S. Potential of nanofiber matrix as tissue-engineering scaffolds. Tissue Eng. 2005, 11, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Turssi, C.P.; Ferracane, J.L.; Ferracane, L.L. Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2006, 78, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Jung, M.; Sehr, K.; Klimek, J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper. Dent. 2007, 32, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ergücü, Z.; Türkün, L.S.; Aladag, A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper. Dent. 2008, 33, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Gaber, M.; Medhat, W.; Hany, M.; Saher, N.; Fang, J.-Y.; Elzoghby, A. Protein-lipid nanohybrids as emerging platforms for drug and gene delivery: Challenges and outcomes. J. Control. Release 2017, 254, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g001 550
Figure 1. Stages of normal wound healing. The timeline represents body response to injury during a normal healing process, without impairments. Figure modified with text, and cells after adaptation of “Healing” from Servier Medical Art by Servier, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Figure 1. Stages of normal wound healing. The timeline represents body response to injury during a normal healing process, without impairments. Figure modified with text, and cells after adaptation of “Healing” from Servier Medical Art by Servier, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g001
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g002 550
Figure 2. Biomaterials previously used for wound healing classified into synthetic and natural polymers, which have been previously and deepened reviewed elsewhere [79,80,81].
Figure 2. Biomaterials previously used for wound healing classified into synthetic and natural polymers, which have been previously and deepened reviewed elsewhere [79,80,81].
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g002
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g003 550
Figure 3. Potential mechanisms of how nanotechnology-based dressings maybe involved in accelerating wound healing, besides of carrying and delivering other actives.
Figure 3. Potential mechanisms of how nanotechnology-based dressings maybe involved in accelerating wound healing, besides of carrying and delivering other actives.
Pharmaceuticals 15 01286 g003
Table
Table 1. Definition, main characteristics and advantages of pharmaceutical forms used in interactive and biological dressings.
Table 1. Definition, main characteristics and advantages of pharmaceutical forms used in interactive and biological dressings.
Dressing TypeDefinitionMain CharacteristicsAdvantagesExamples (References)
AlginateDressings made of calcium alginate, an anionic polysaccharide produced from brown seaweedCalcium ions from dressing are exchanged with sodium ions from wound environment, forming a gelCan absorb 15–20 times their weight in fluids; can be removed intact; considered long-term dressingRelease of therapeutic proteins [82]; containing chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate nanoparticles [83]; Sulfide-releasing property [84]
FilmsSemipermeable dressings made from polyurethane and coated with an acrylic derivative adhesiveTransparent, gas and water vapour permeableAllow easy wound monitoring (transparent dressing); can be changed only when necessary and removing cause simple and small trauma in wound regionElectroactive shape memory polyurethane-urea films [85]
FoamsComposed of polyurethane or silicone with a semi-occlusive outer layerOuter layer is permeable to water vapour and serves as barrier for microorganisms’ infection, polyurethane center absorbs exudateAble to create or maintain a moist environment; easy and nom-traumatic removal; can absorb and retain wound exudateHemostatic polyurethane-urea foams [86]
HydrocolloidsCrosslinked polymer matrices with integrated adhesives and starches, such as cellulose, gelatin, pectin and guarOcclusive and adhesive dressing, which form a gel upon contact with wound exudate, permeable to water vapour, allow debridementForm gels in contact with wound exudate; capacity to promote wound debridement; long wear-timeCentella asiatica loaded hydrocolloid based on sodium alginate [60]
HydrofiberContain carboxymethyl cellulose formed into textile fibersHighly absorbent fibers, form gels upon exudate absorption, allow autolytic debridementCan absorb 25 times its own weight; form gel when in contact with wound exudate; encourage autolytic debridementHydrofiber dressing with silver [78]
HydrogelsWater-based products, designed as polymeric networks, comprised of up to 96% waterClear to transparent, capable to absorb biological fluids, permeable to water and oxygenAllow easy wound monitoring (transparent dressing); capable of absorbing biological fluids; maintain the area moisturized; promotes autolytic debridement; help cell proliferation and epithelization process; minimal or null trauma in their removal; permeable to water and oxygenHydrogels of PNIPAAm-co-Aam to release bromelain [87]; triple polymer hydrogel (chitosan, gelatin and PVA) loaded with moxifloxacin [88]
Table
Table 2. Summary of preparation process used to develop reviewed nanotechnology-based systems used for wound healing.
Table 2. Summary of preparation process used to develop reviewed nanotechnology-based systems used for wound healing.
Nanotechnology-Based SystemDescriptionMaterialActive LoadedPreparation ProcessStudy Type (References)
NanoparticlesInorganic
nanoparticles		Silver and goldNonePhytochemical assisted thermal reductionIn vivo [92]
SilverNonePhytochemical assisted thermal reductionIn vitro [93] and in vivo [94]
Zinc oxideNoneRoom temperature synthesis and solvothermal synthesisIn vitro [95]
Polymeric nanoparticlesChitosanSilver sulfadiazineIonotropic gelationIn vitro [96]
BromelainIonotropic gelationIn vitro [97,98,99]
Solid lipid nanoparticlesPoloxamer 188 and tristearinPropolisStirring followed by ultrasonicationIn vitro and in vivo [100]
Polymeric nanofiberComposite bilayer filmPolyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and gelatin/chitosan/polyethylene glycol (PEG) blendNonesolution casting and crosslinking agentIn vitro [66]
MembraneBacterial nanocelluloseBromelainBacterial cultivationIn vitro [12]
NisinBacterial cultivationIn vitro [101,102]
NanofiberPolylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)Recombinant human epidermal growth factor and Aloe vera extractElectrospinningIn vitro and in vivo [17]
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and tamarind seed gumClindamycinElectrospinningIn vitro [103,104]
NanohybridsHydrogel and nanoparticlesAlginate and gellatin hydrogelSilver nanoparticlesHomogenization with mechanical stirrerIn vitro and in vivo [105]
Chitosan hydrogelZinc oxide nanoparticlesNanoparticles: reduction with NaOH
Hydrogel: pH change of chitosan solution
Nanohydrid: homogeneization of NP and hydrogels followed by freeze-drying		In vitro and in vivo [106]
β-chitin hydrogelZinc oxide nanoparticlesNanoparticles: reduction with NaOH
Hydrogel: crosslink with CaCl2
Nanohydrid: homogeneization of NP and hydrogels followed by freeze-drying		In vitro and in vivo [107]
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and chitosanZinc oxide nanoparticlesFreeze-thaw methodIn vitro [108]
Chitosan and Bletilla striata polysaccharideChitosan-Ag nanoparticlesHydrogel sponge: homogeneization followed by freeze-drying
Nanoparticles: reduction followed by freeze-drying
Nanohybrid: nanoparticles were crosslinked with genipin and frozen, followed by freeze-drying with sponges		In vitro and in vivo [56]
Membranes and nanoparticlesBacterial nanocellulose membranesZinc oxide nanoparticlesMembranes: bacterial cultivation
Nanohybrid: impregnation of ZnO NP		In vitro and in vivo [109]
Bacterial nanocelluloseSilver nanoparticlesMembranes: bacterial cultivation
Nanoparticles: silver nitrate reduction with sodium borohydride
Nanohybrid: impregnation of silver nitrate		In vitro [110]
Nanofiber and nanoparticlesPolycaprolactone nanofibersZinc oxide nanoparticlesElectrospinningIn vitro [111]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ataide, J.A.; Zanchetta, B.; Santos, É.M.; Fava, A.L.M.; Alves, T.F.R.; Cefali, L.C.; Chaud, M.V.; Oliveira-Nascimento, L.; Souto, E.B.; Mazzola, P.G. Nanotechnology-Based Dressings for Wound Management. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1286. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15101286

AMA Style

Ataide JA, Zanchetta B, Santos ÉM, Fava ALM, Alves TFR, Cefali LC, Chaud MV, Oliveira-Nascimento L, Souto EB, Mazzola PG. Nanotechnology-Based Dressings for Wound Management. Pharmaceuticals. 2022; 15(10):1286. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15101286

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ataide, Janaína A., Beatriz Zanchetta, Érica M. Santos, Ana Laura M. Fava, Thais F. R. Alves, Letícia C. Cefali, Marco V. Chaud, Laura Oliveira-Nascimento, Eliana B. Souto, and Priscila G. Mazzola. 2022. "Nanotechnology-Based Dressings for Wound Management" Pharmaceuticals 15, no. 10: 1286. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15101286

APA Style

Ataide, J. A., Zanchetta, B., Santos, É. M., Fava, A. L. M., Alves, T. F. R., Cefali, L. C., Chaud, M. V., Oliveira-Nascimento, L., Souto, E. B., & Mazzola, P. G. (2022). Nanotechnology-Based Dressings for Wound Management. Pharmaceuticals, 15(10), 1286. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15101286

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop