Abstract:This review focuses on materials and methods used to induce phenotypic changes in macrophages and fibroblasts. Herein, we give a brief overview on how changes in macrophages and fibroblasts phenotypes are critical biomarkers for identification of implant acceptance, wound healing effectiveness, and are also essential for evaluating the regenerative capabilities of some hybrid strategies that involve the combination of natural and synthetic materials. The different types of cells present during the host respons… Show more
“…This dynamic in the capsule formation is coincident in time with the infiltration of macrophages in the nerve due to the implant described here which also peaked after 2 weeks and started to decrease thereafter (49) . It has been shown that macrophages and phagocytes are related with the nature of the material implanted and its degradation dynamics (50), (51) . Thus, biodegradable materials would stimulate a more M1 and phagocytic environment to eliminate the implant.…”
“…This dynamic in the capsule formation is coincident in time with the infiltration of macrophages in the nerve due to the implant described here which also peaked after 2 weeks and started to decrease thereafter (49) . It has been shown that macrophages and phagocytes are related with the nature of the material implanted and its degradation dynamics (50), (51) . Thus, biodegradable materials would stimulate a more M1 and phagocytic environment to eliminate the implant.…”
“…Many studies have focused on investigating the interaction between implanted biomaterials and the host response that causes capsular contracture via FBRs to improve the function and durability of PDMS‐based silicone implants . Although the mechanism of FBRs against PDMS implants has not yet been fully understood, it has been accepted that several cells including macrophages, fibroblasts, and myofibroblasts play a key role in encapsulating the implant with a dense collagenous avascular capsule . In particular, nonspecific protein adsorption and macrophage adhesion in the initial inflammatory process promote the overall FBRs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6][7][8] Although the mechanism of FBRs against PDMS implants has not yet been fully understood, it has been accepted that several cells including macrophages, fibroblasts, and myofibroblasts play a key role in encapsulating the implant with a dense collagenous avascular capsule. [9][10][11][12] In particular, nonspecific protein adsorption and macrophage adhesion in the initial inflammatory process promote the overall FBRs. Therefore, it has been considered important to suppress the FBRs by reducing the cell adhesion at the surface of the implant and controlling the cell behavior by modifying the characteristics of the implant such as surface chemistry and topography.…”
The surface of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) is grafted with poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) layers via surface‐initiated photopolymerization to suppress the capsular contracture resulting from a foreign body reaction. Owing to the nature of photo‐induced polymerization, various PAA micropatterns can be fabricated using photolithography. Hole and stripe micropatterns ≈100‐µm wide and 3‐µm thick are grafted onto the PDMS surface without delamination. The incorporation of PAA micropatterns provides not only chemical cues by hydrophilic PAA microdomains but also topographical cues by hole or stripe micropatterns. In vitro studies reveal that a PAA‐grafted PDMS surface has a lower proliferation of both macrophages (Raw 264.7) and fibroblasts (NIH 3T3) regardless of the pattern presence. However, PDMS with PAA micropatterns, especially stripe micropatterns, minimizes the aggregation of fibroblasts and their subsequent differentiation into myofibroblasts. An in vivo study also shows that PDMS samples with stripe micropatterns polarized macrophages into anti‐inflammatory M2 macrophages and most effectively inhibits capsular contracture, which is demonstrated by investigation of inflammation score, transforming‐growth‐factor‐β expression, number of macrophages, and myofibroblasts as well as the collagen density and capsule thickness.
“…The importance of macrophages was initially documented in 1975 through a series of anti-serum and steroid suppression experiments where, unlike neutrophils, impaired or depleted macrophages had a negative impact on the time to wound healing. After these initial experiments, subsequent data confirmed these findings and it is now widely recognized that macrophages function as a critical regulatory cell in wound healing [37,45,46]. …”
Wound healing continues to be a major burden to patients, though research in the field has expanded significantly. Due to an aging population and increasing comorbid conditions, the cost of chronic wounds is expected to increase for patients and the U.S. healthcare system alike. With this knowledge, the number of engineered products to facilitate wound healing has also increased dramatically, with some already in clinical use. In this review, the major biomaterials used to facilitate skin wound healing will be examined, with particular attention allocated to the science behind their development. Experimental therapies will also be evaluated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.