Cytotoxicity testing of burn wound dressings: first results

Abstract

Topical antimicrobial therapy represents an essential part of burn wound care. In order to prevent and treat burn wound infection dressings with antimicrobial properties are applied directly on the wound surface. Not only the infection control but also promotion of healing is very important in burn wound management. It is well known, that a dressing in bactericidal concentration might also delay wound healing. This study was aimed to evaluate the potential toxic effect of topical antimicrobial agents on murine and human dermal cells. For toxicity testing the method by Vittekova et al. was used to evaluate potential toxic effects of 16 agents and 6 control samples on two in vitro cultured cell systems [3T3 cells and dermal fibroblasts] during the first 24 h. Following the 24 h cell culture with the tested agents the live cell counts were evaluated. According to results obtained on both cell systems, the tested samples were divided into three groups-nontoxic, semi-toxic and toxic. Nontoxic samples included Acetic acid 1%, Acticoat, Dermacyn, Framykoin, Silverlon, gauze, acellular human allodermis and acellular porcine xenodermis. Semi-toxic group included AlgivonPlus, AquacelAg, Betadine, Nitrofurazone, Octenisept, Suprasorb A and a porcine dermal scaffold Xeno-Impl. Finally, the toxic group included Algivon, Dermazin, IalugenPlus, Prontoderm, Suprasorb A Ag and 20% SDS. As the preliminary results of this study have shown, our findings may serve as a potential guide to selection of the most appropriate topical antimicrobial dressings for treatmet of burns. However before they can be translated into clinical practice recommendations, more research on antimicrobial dressings cytotoxicity testing will be necessary.

Postoperative effects on lower third molars of using mouthwashes with super-oxidized solution versus 0.2% chlorhexidine gel: A randomized double-blind trial

“…The antiseptic activity of the compound, as well as its low toxicity, may have influenced the results of the study, as both characteristics are below other antiseptics such as Betadine, which has been assessed in other recent published studies ( 30 ).…”

Bullous skin lesion reaction as an example of an adverse effect of a preparation containing 0.1% octenidine dihydrochloride and 2% phenoxyethanol (Octenisept®)

“…It has been proved that Octenisept ® belongs to the group of semi-toxic preparations, which means that the number of live cells after exposure to the solution was within the range of 20% to 70% in regard to the number of live cells obtained from control samples. Simultaneously, human dermal fibroblasts were verified to be more sensitive to Octenisept ® than murine fibroblasts [19]. High cytotoxicity of Octenisept ® was proved regarding human keratinocytes.…”

In vitro cellular viability studies on a concentrated surfactant‐based wound dressing

“…Such effects all decrease the cellular viability, proliferation, and mobility that will delay wound healing. There are many articles in the literature, which discuss the cytotoxicity of wound dressings, in particular those that are impregnated with antimicrobial agents …”

“…There are many articles in the literature, which discuss the cytotoxicity of wound dressings, in particular those that are impregnated with antimicrobial agents. 2,4,[7][8][9][10] Recently, multiple studies have shown the effectiveness of using surfactant-based wound dressings with or without antimicrobial agents in wound healing and pain reduction. 5,[11][12][13][14] However, fewer studies have discussed the cells response to these surfactants.…”