Review of AlloDerm Acellular Human Dermis Regenerative Tissue Matrix in Multiple Types of Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Bee, Youn-Shen; Alonzo, Brock; Ng, John D.

doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000000339

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the decellularized implant products shown in Table 3 tend to perform well with few reported issues with their use in diverse implant sites (typically soft tissue), particularly in humans [35, 187, 188]. A number of clinically approved matrix protein-derived devices see regular use in patients in numerous locations in vivo, primarily as tissue fillers/bulking agents (see Table 3) with safe outcomes.…”

Section: Comparisons Between Rodent and Human Host Responses To Ecm Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins collectively represent a class of naturally derived proteinaceous biomaterials purified from harvested organs and tissues with increasing scientific focus and utility in tissue engineering and repair. This interest stems predominantly from the largely unproven concept that processed ECM biomaterials as natural tissue-derived matrices better integrate with host tissue than purely synthetic biomaterials. Nearly every tissue type has been decellularized and processed for re-use as tissue-derived ECM protein implants and scaffolds. To date, however, little consensus exists for defining ECM compositions or sources that best constitute decellularized biomaterials that might better heal, integrate with host tissues and avoid the foreign body response (FBR). Metrics used to assess ECM performance in biomaterial implants are arbitrary and contextually specific by convention. Few comparisons for in vivo host responses to ECM implants from different sources are published. This review discusses current ECM-derived biomaterials characterization methods including relationships between ECM material compositions from different sources, properties and host tissue response as implants. Relevant preclinical in vivo models are compared along with their associated advantages and limitations, and the current state of various metrics used to define material integration and biocompatibility are discussed. Commonly applied applications of these ECM-derived biomaterials as stand-alone implanted matrices and devices are compared with respect to host tissue responses.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Between Rodent and Human Host Responses To Ecm Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Injecting soft tissue fillers to cure facial and neck wrinkles starts early, and hyaluronic acid and collagen are used to cure neck wrinkles in clinical . The neck skin is thin, and it always affect by movement, so the injecting drug is easy to accumulate in local site . Because of the short absorption time of hyaluronic acid, collagen, and the accumulating of the injecting drug, the effect is not very well …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,19,[23][24][25][26] The neck skin is thin, and it always affect by movement, so the injecting drug is easy to accumulate in local site. 4,[27][28][29] Because of the short absorption time of hyaluronic acid, collagen, and the accumulating of the injecting drug, the effect is not very well. 30 Autologous keratin is well biocompatible, and its molecular structure is stable, which made it being a good extracellular supporting materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New soft tissue filler derived from autologous keratin and fibroblast for neck wrinkles

Wang

Zhang

et al. 2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a recent study of 84 patients with malignancy in 26 patients (31.0 %), trauma in 19 patients (22.6 %), congenital lesions in 15 patients (17.9 %), and senile change in 11 patients (13.1 %) was reported [ 32 ]. These patients underwent lower eyelid posterior lamella elongation, socket and fornix reconstruction, scar repair, patch grafts, and fi ller.…”

Section: Ophthalmologic Reconstructive Surgerymentioning

confidence: 90%