| Literature DB >> 27499887 |
Seung Moon Lee1, Il Kyu Park1, Yong Soo Kim1, Hyun Jung Kim1, Hanlim Moon2, Stefan Mueller2, Harsha Arumugam2, Young-Il Jeong3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate the physicochemical and structural properties of Medifoam®Silver and to compare with other commercially available silver-containing polyurethane (PU) foam dressing in vitro.Entities:
Keywords: Absorption/retention; Polyurethane foam dressing; Porosity; Silver-containing dressing; Wound healing
Year: 2016 PMID: 27499887 PMCID: PMC4975873 DOI: 10.1186/s40824-016-0069-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomater Res ISSN: 1226-4601
Fig. 1Thickness (a), density (b) of foam dressing. *,** : p < 0.001
Fig. 2Morphological assessment of foam dressing by FE-SEM. A Surface (wound contact layer): (a) Medifoam silver, (b) Allevyn Ag, (c) Mepilex Ag, and (d) Polymem silver. B Cross-section: (e) Medifoam silver, (f) Allevyn Ag, (g) Mepilex Ag, and (h) Polymem silver
Pore size of foam dressings
| Pore size (μm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface | Cross-section | |||
| Size distribution | Average | Size distribution | Average | |
| Medifoam®silver | 25–75 | 69.2 | 100–350 | 274.8 |
| Allevyn®Ag | 70–90 | 78.6 | 370–500 | 422.4 |
| Mepilex®Ag | 100–250 | 150.8 | 350–500 | 441.6 |
| Polymem®silver | 130–250 | 195 | 900–1500 | 1236 |
Fig. 3Tensile strength (a), and elongation (b) of foam dressings. *,** : p < 0.05
Fig. 4Comparison of absorption rate (a), absorption/retention capacity (b), and WVT value (c) of foam dressings. *: p < 0.001; **,***,**** : p < 0.01
Fig. 5(a) comparison of antibacterial activity in vitro of foam dressings. Antibacterial effect of silver dressing against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus subst. (ATCC6538). b and c were reduction ratio of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus subst., respectively. Logarithmic reduction ratio was calculated as detailed in the method section (Antibacterial activity). *, ** : p < 0.05