| Literature DB >> 28979320 |
Malahat Ahmadi1, Masood Adibhesami1.
Abstract
The microorganisms have been usually noted as the major cause of delayed wound healing. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common pathogen causing these infections. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) show ample antibacterial activities. In present study, the effect of AgNPs alone and in combination with tetracycline investigated on inoculated wounds with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in mice. Twenty mice anesthetized and full-thickness skin wounds created on back of them and the bacterial suspension added to each wound bed. Wound infection assessed using total count of bacterial load and also wound healing monitored, macroscopically. In all groups treatments applied topically in the wound bed: AgNPs, tetracycline, AgNPs along with tetracycline and normal saline in control group. The tetracycline along with AgNPs achieved 100% wound closure on day 12. In the AgNPs group, the percentage of wound contraction has close figures compared to tetracycline and normal saline as 98, 99 and 79 percent, respectively. By day 12, all of the treated groups with AgNPs, tetracycline and AgNPs along with tetracycline showed decreases in surface bacterial concentration compared with control group. Also, significant decrease (P < 0.001) in deep skin bacterial counts in the AgNPs, tetracycline and AgNPs along with tetracycline compared with control group at any time point. Application of AgNPs along with tetracycline is more effective than AgNPs and tetracycline alone to reduce the bacterial load whilst wound macroscopic contraction increased. These findings support use of the AgNPs in combination with antibacterial medicine for the treatment of infectious skin wounds.Entities:
Keywords: Mice; Pseudomonas aeroginosa; Silver nanoparticles; Wound infection
Year: 2017 PMID: 28979320 PMCID: PMC5603875
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 2Photograph of wounds in control, NP, NP+Tet and Tet groups on days 0, 4, 8, and 12. Scale bar; 3 mm.
Figure 1Wound clousre over time. Tet: Tetracycline; NP: Nanoparticle; Tet + NP: Tetracycline along with tetracycline
Bacterial load average in wounds area of experimental groups post treatment
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| NP | 4 | 6×105 CFU/10 µL |
| 8 | 1.3×105 CFU/10 µL | |
| 12 | 0 CFU/gr | |
| Tet | 4 | 5×105 CFU/10 µL |
| 8 | 1.1×105 CFU/10 µL | |
| 12 | 0 CFU/gr | |
| NP+ Tet | 4 | 3×105 CFU/10 µLl |
| 8 | 6×104 CFU/10 µL | |
| 12 | 0 CFU/gr | |
| Control | 4 | 1.2×1010 CFU/10 µL |
| 8 | 3.1×109 CFU/10 µL | |
| 12 | 6×10 CFU/gr |
Result of Tukey,s analysis indicate significant different (P < 0.001) in the between groups of NP, Tet, NP+Tet and control on day 4, day 8 and day 12.
Mean of the wound area on 4, 8 and 12 days in NP, Tet, NP+Tet and control groups. Tet: Tetracycline; NP: Nanoparticle; Tet+NP: Tetracycline along with tetracycline
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NP | 7.06 | 5.48 (22) | 2.43 (65) | 0.10 (98) |