| Literature DB >> 36135577 |
Parastoo Namdar1, Amirhossein Moaddabi2,3, Rezvan Yazdian4, Majid Saeedi5, Fatemeh Ahmadian6, Atena Shiva7, Carmela Del Giudice8, Parisa Soltani9, Gianrico Spagnuolo8.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of folinic acid chitosan hydrogel and botulinum toxin A on the wound repair of cleft lip surgery in rat animal models. Cleft lip defects were simulated by triangular incisions in the upper lip of 40 Wistar rats. Then, the rats were randomly assigned to four groups: control (CTRL), chitosan hydrogel (CHIT), and folinic acid chitosan hydrogel (FOLCHIT), in which the wounds were covered by a gauze pad soaked in normal saline, chitosan hydrogel, and folinic acid chitosan hydrogel, respectively for 5 min immediately after closure; and botulinum toxin A (BOT) with the injection of 3 units of botulinum toxin A in the wound region. Fibroblast proliferation, collagen deposition, inflammatory cell infiltration, neovascularization, and epithelial proliferation and each parameter were rated on days 14 and 28. Statistical analysis was performed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Shapiro-Wilk test, Kruskal-Wallis, and post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). The mean score for fibroblast proliferation was significantly higher in the FOLCHIT group compared with the BOT group at days 14 and 28 (p < 0.001, p = 0.012, respectively). At day 28, collagen deposition was significantly higher in the FOLCHIT group compared with the BOT group (p = 0.012). No significant difference was observed between the inflammatory infiltration of the study groups at the two time points (p = 0.096 and p = 1.000, respectively). At day 14, vascular proliferation of group FOLCHIT was significantly higher than groups CTRL and CHIT (p = 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). The epithelial proliferation in the FOLCHIT group was significantly higher than groups CHIT and CTRL at day 14 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001, respectively) and day 28 (p = 0.012). In simulated lip cleft defects, topical application of folinic acid induces faster initial regeneration by higher inflammation and cellular proliferation, at the expense of a higher tendency for scar formation by slightly higher fibroblast proliferation and collagen deposition. While injection of botulinum toxin A provides less fibroblast proliferation and collagen deposition, and thus lower potential for scar formation compared with the folinic acid group. Therefore, in wounds of the esthetic zone, such as cleft lip defects, the application of botulinum toxin A shows promising results.Entities:
Keywords: botulinum toxin A; chitosan; cleft lip; folinic acid; wound healing
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135577 PMCID: PMC9502383 DOI: 10.3390/jfb13030142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Funct Biomater ISSN: 2079-4983
Figure 1Diagrams of FTIR (a), DSC (b), viscosity (c), and release profile (d) of the prepared folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.
Figure 2Hematoxylin and eosin staining of samples in BOT (×400 a), CHIT (×100 b), FOLCHIT (×400 c) groups after 14 days (fb: Fibroblast; co: Collagen fibers; bv: Blood vessels).
Figure 3Hematoxylin and eosin staining of samples in BOT (×400 a), CHIT (×100 b), FOLCHIT (×400 c) groups after 28 days (fb: Fibroblast; co: Collagen fibers; bv: Blood vessels).
Figure 4Masson’s trichrome staining of a sample in the FOLCHIT group after 28 days (co: Collagen fibers).
Frequency (percentage) of scores for fibroblast proliferation in different groups at days 14 and 28.
| Groups | Mild (1+) | Moderate (2+) | Marked (3+) | Mean Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTRL | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| BOT | Day 14 | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 0 (0) | 1.4 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 0 (0) | 1.4 | ||
| CHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 3 (60) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| FOLCHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 3 | Z = 1.96, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 2.4 | ||
| Kruskal-Wallis test | Day 14 | X2 = 16.48, | ||||
| Day 28 | X2 = 9.82, | |||||
CTRL: Control; BOT: Botulinum toxin A; CHIT: Chitosan hydrogel; FOL: Folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.
Frequency (percentage) of scores for collagen deposition in different groups at days 14 and 28.
| Groups | Mild (1+) | Moderate (2+) | Marked (3+) | Mean Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTRL | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| BOT | Day 14 | 2 (40) | 3 (60) | 0 (0) | 1.6 | Z = 0.60, |
| Day 28 | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 0 (0) | 1.4 | ||
| CHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| FOLCHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 2.2 | Z = 0.65, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 2.4 | ||
| Kruskal-Wallis test | Day 14 | X2 = 6.18, | ||||
| Day 28 | X2 = 9.86, | |||||
CTRL: Control; BOT: Botulinum toxin A; CHIT: Chitosan hydrogel; FOL: Folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.
Frequency (percentage) of scores for infiltration of inflammatory cells in different groups at days 14 and 28.
| Groups | Mild (1+) | Moderate (2+) | Marked (3+) | Mean Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTRL | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| BOT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| CHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| FOLCHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 2.4 | Z = 2.83, |
| Day 28 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| Kruskal-Wallis test | Day 14 | X2 = 6.33, | ||||
| Day 28 | X2 = 0.00, | |||||
CTRL: Control; BOT: Botulinum toxin A; CHIT: Chitosan hydrogel; FOL: Folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.
Frequency (percentage) of scores for vascular proliferation in different groups at days 14 and 28.
| Groups | Absence (0) | Mild (1+) | Moderate (2+) | Marked (3+) | Mean Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTRL | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | Z = 1.50, |
| Day 28 | 2 (40) | 3 (60) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.6 | ||
| BOT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| CHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 0 (0) | 1.2 | Z = 1.34, |
| Day 28 | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.8 | ||
| FOLCHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 3 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | ||
| Kruskal-Wallis test | Day 14 | X2 = 17.52, | |||||
| Day 28 | X2 = 4.10, | ||||||
CTRL: Control; BOT: Botulinum toxin A; CHIT: Chitosan hydrogel; FOL: Folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.
Frequency (percentage) of scores for epithelial proliferation in different groups at days 14 and 28.
| Groups | Mild (1+) | Moderate (2+) | Marked (3+) | Mean Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTRL | Day 14 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| BOT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | Z = 3.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 3 | ||
| CHIT | Day 14 | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 0 (0) | 1.2 | Z = 2.45, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 | ||
| FOLCHIT | Day 14 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 3 | Z = 0.00, |
| Day 28 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (100) | 3 | ||
| Kruskal-Wallis test | Day 14 | X2 = 17.52, | ||||
| Day 28 | X2 = 19.00, | |||||
CTRL: Control; BOT: Botulinum toxin A; CHIT: Chitosan hydrogel; FOL: Folinic acid chitosan hydrogel.