(a).
| Reference | Wound closure analysis | Reepithelialization analysis | Oxidative stress | Granulation tissue fill | Tensile strengths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bastos et al., 2011 | ? | Fractions A and B: moderated 9 days Fractions A and B: 100% 15 days |
? | After 15 days in the treated rats, the wound healing process by stimulating different biological events such as network of fibrin, epithelialization, granulation tissue, neovascularization, and wound contraction | ? |
|
| |||||
| Shukla et al., 1999 | ? | ? |
Increased: Superoxide dismutase (35%), catalase (67%), and glutathione peroxidase (49%) Reduced: Glutathione (17%) |
? | ? |
|
| |||||
| Muralidhar et al., 2011 | Petroleum ether fraction: (86.83 ± 0.87%) 16 days Benzene fraction: (86.67 ± 0.67%) 16 days Chloroform fraction: (88.0 ± 0.57%) 16 days Acetone fraction: (96.0 ± 0.37%) 16 days Control: (85.17 ± 0.79%) 16 days |
Epithelialization in days
Petroleum ether fraction: 21.17 ± 0.48% Benzene fraction: 21.67 ± 0.42% Chloroform fraction: 21.83 ± 0.48% Acetone fraction: 16.67 ± 0.42% Control: 22.0 ± 0.37% |
? |
Hydroxyproline content (μg/mg)
Petroleum ether fraction: 21.57 ± 0.21 Benzene fraction: 20.96 ± 0.08 Chloroform fraction: 21.84 ± 0.08 Acetone fraction: 23.50 ± 0.17 Control: 21.48 ± 0.17 |
Petroleum ether fraction: 155.83 ± 2.26 g Benzene fraction: 151.0 ± 2.59 g Chloroform fraction: 163.33 ± 1.33 g Acetone fraction: 212.83 ± 2.02 g Control: 147.33 ± 1.23 g |
|
| |||||
| Süntar et al., 2013 |
Wound area (mm
2
) ± SEM (contraction%) in 12 days
Hg-MeOH: 0.96 ± 0.30 (65.71%) Hg-Hexane: 2.37 ± 0.11 (15.36%) Hg-CH2Cl2: 2.35 ± 0.29 (16.07%) Hg-EtOAc: 1.47 ± 0.32 (47.50%) Hg-BuOH: 1.74 ± 0.48 (37.86%) Hg-R-H2O: 2.63 ± 0.17 (6.07%) Hg-Fr.A: 2.20 ± 0.39 (20.29%) Hg-Fr.B: 1.65 ± 0.09 (40.22%) Hg-Fr.C: 1.83 ± 0.14 (33.69%) Control: 2.76 ± 0.30 (6.44%) |
Tissues treated with Hg-MeOH, Hg-EtOAc, and Hg-Fr.B demonstrated good wound recovery with faster reepithelialization compared to the other groups tested | ? |
Hydroxyproline content (μg/mg)
Hg-MeOH: 26.3 ± 1.0 Hg-Hexane: 18.5 ± 2.1 Hg-CH2Cl2: 19.7 ± 1.9 Hg-EtOAc: 31.2 ± 0.9 Hg-BuOH: 15.6 ± 1.8 Hg-R-H2O: 13.3 ± 1.8 Hg-Fr.A: 15.4 ± 1.2 Hg-Fr.B: 25.5 ± 1.2 Hg-Fr.C: 16.3 ± 1.9 Control: 8.9 ± 2.1 |
Hg-MeOH: 30.11% Hg-Hexane: 17.5% Hg-CH2Cl2: 15.2% Hg-EtOAc: 28.5% Hg-BuOH: 25.8% Hg-R-H2O: 11.6% Hg-Fr.A: 13.9% Hg-Fr.B: 25.2% Hg-Fr.C: 21.3% Control: 5.8% |
|
| |||||
| Mekonnen et al. 2013 |
Wound contraction in 12 days
Chloroform: xerogel: (77.517 ± 1.88), 5%: (79.91 ± 71.30), and 10%: (82.63 ± 1.74) Methanol: simple ointment: (86.21 ± 1.5), 5%: (90.86 ± 0.21), and 10%: (92.09 ± 2.00) Control: (96.63 ± 0.32) |
Epithelialization in days
Chloroform: xerogel: (17.83 ± 0.30), 5%: (17.16 ± 0.60), and 10%: (16.83 ± 0.65) Methanol: simple ointment: (17.33 ± 0.33), 5%: (15.66 ± 0.21), and 10%: (15.33 ± 0.66) Positive control: (14.00 ± 0.44) |
? |
Hydroxyproline content (μg/mg)
Chloroform: xerogel: (3.01 ± 0.46), 5%: (5.83 ± 0.79), and 10%: (7.08 ± 2.08) Methanol: simple ointment: (3.29 ± 0.66), 5%: (11.01 ± 0.53), and 10%: (15.33 ± 0.66) Control: (12.57 ± 2.59) |
Chloroform: xerogel: 190.83 ± 15.62 g (14.26%), 5%: 238.33 ± 22.86 g (24.89%), and 10%: 265.00 ± 33.04 g (38.86%) Methanol: simple ointment: 201.50 ± 10.05 g (20.65%), 5%: 322.00 ± 23.63 g (59.80%), and 10%: 336.83 ± 28.39 g (67.16%) Control: 402.33 ± 30.26 g |
|
| |||||
| Pieters et al., 1995 | PEG ointment: (70%) 15 days PEG 400 10%: (80%) 15 days Polyphenolic fraction from dragon's blood in H2O: (90%) 15 days Control: (60%) 15 days |
PEG ointment: ++ (15 days) PEG 400 10%: ++ (15 days) Polyphenolic fraction from dragon's blood in H2O: ++ (15 days) Control: + (15 days) |
? |
Crust presence
PEG ointment: after 4 days PEG 400 10%: after 5 days Polyphenolic fraction from dragon's blood in H2O: after 1 day Control: after 3 days |
? |
|
| |||||
| Korkina et al., 2007 | Both verbascoside 56% (46,29 ± 12,21%) 8 days Both verbascoside 97% (124,29 ± 31,23%) 8 days Teupolioside 70% (78,39 ± 21,75%) 8 days Teupolioside 97% (98,45 ± 24,26%) 8 days Control (150,16 ± 65,46%) 8 days |
? |
Lipid peroxidation
Both verbascoside 56% (7,4 ± 0,6%) Both verbascoside 97% (5,8 ± 0,4%) Teupolioside 70% (12,0 ± 0,7%) Teupolioside 97% (9,4 ± 0,6%) Control: (10,3 ± 1,0) Glutathione (GST) Both verbascoside 56% (3,0 ± 1,3%) Both verbascoside 97% (5,1 ± 1,3%) Teupolioside 70% (3,4 ± 1,3%) Teupolioside 97% (5,9 ± 1,2%) Control: (3,6 ± 1.3%) Superoxide dismutases Both verbascoside 56% (2,5 ± 0,1%) Both verbascoside 97% (2,2 ± 0,1%) Teupolioside 70% (3,1 ± 0,3%) Teupolioside 97% (1,0 ± 0,1%) Control: (4,5 ± 0,5%) |
? | ? |
|
| |||||
| Bigoniya et al., 2013 | EHTF 200 (71,01 ± 4,25%) 16 days EHTF 400 (69,98 ± 3,34%) 16 days EHTF 600 (6,02 ± 0,79%) 16 days Control (71,65 ± 3,21%) 16 days |
EHTF 200 (19,66 ± 2,85%) EHTF 400 (19,50 ± 2,63%) EHTF 600 (17,50 ± 1,56%) Control (21,50 ± 1,22%) |
Vehicle control: catalase (0,46 ± 0,02%); SOD (1,15 ± 0,12%), and total protein (2,60 ± 0,06%) EHTF 200: catalase (0,45 ± 0,03%), SOD (1,16 ± 0,06%), and total protein (2,69 ± 0,07%) EHTF 400: catalase (0,52 ± 0,09%), SOD (2,63 ± 0,15%), and total protein (3,34 ± 0,05%) EHTF 600: catalase (0,75 ± 0,19%), SOD (5,06 ± 0,09%), and total protein (4,02 ± 0,03%) |
Hydroxyproline content
EHTF 200 (15,89 ± 1,28%) EHTF 400 (17,89 ± 2,26%) EHTF 600 (24,14 ± 2,23%) Control (16,09 ± 1,35%) |
? |
|
| |||||
| Lodhi et al., 2011 | MAF A (100,00%) 20 days MAF B (100,00%) 20 days MAF C (100,00%) 18 days Control (90,37 ± 2,07%) 20 days |
MAF A and B (20 days) MAF C (18 days) Control (24 days) |
? |
Hydroxyproline content: MAF A (37,11 ± 1,25%) MAF B (32,86 ± 0,85%) MAF C (42,01 ± 0,82%) Control (21,74 ± 1,85%) Protein content MAF A (56,30 ± 0,55%) MAF B (52,50 ± 1,70%) MAF C (83,60 ± 0,72%) Control (47,30 ± 1,72%) |
MAF A (603,00 ± 12,01%) MAF B (635,00 ± 9,68%) MAF C (850,00 ± 11,89%) Control (423,00 ± 10,96%) |
|
| |||||
| Tabandeh et al., 2013 | Silibinin 10%: 100% (18 days) Silibinin 20%: 100% (22 days) Control: 100% (26 days) |
? | ? |
Content N-acetyl glucosamine and n-acetyl galactosamine: silibinin 10 and 20% ↑ compared with the control groups at days 10, 20, and 30 Hydroxyproline and collagen content: silibinin 10 and 20% ↑ compared with the control groups at days 10, 20, and 30 |
? |
|
| |||||
| Sonmez et al., 2015 | Absorbable polysaccharide haemostat (APH): (94.74 ± 0.02%) 14 days Control: 87.33 ± 0.02% 14 days |
? | ? |
Type 1 collagen
APH: 4.25 Control: 3.25 Fibroblast density APH: 2.87 Control: 1.75 |
? |
|
| |||||
| Karakaş et al., 2012 | HOT: (80%) 30 days HOTBp: (100%) 30 days Control: (80%) 30 days |
? | ? | HOT: ↑ fibroblastic and lymphocytes: 5 days HOTBp: ↑ fibroblastic and lymphocytes: 5 days Control: ↑ fibroblastic and lymphocytes: 5 days HOT: ↑ collagen fibrils: 10 days HOTBp: ↑ collagen fibrils: 10 days Control: ↑ collagen fibrils: 10 days |
? |
|
| |||||
| Choi et al., 2001 | G1G1M1DI2: (98,9%) 8 days Control: (69,5%) 8 days |
Epithelialization in 8 days
G1G1M1DI2: 98,9% Control: 69,5% |
? |
EGF receptor
G1G1M1DL2 0,5%: (113%) G1G1M1DL2 50%: (220 ± 8%) Control: 100% Fibronectin G1G1M1DL2 0,5%: (294 ± 34%) G1G1M1DL2 50%: (408 ± 80%) Control: 100% Fibronectin receptor G1G1M1DL2 0,5%: (159 ± 11%) G1G1M1DL2 50%: (220 ± 19%) Control: 100% |
? |
|
| |||||
| Parente et al., 2011 | ? | ? | ? | Number of blood vessels HCF 1 (0/4) DCF 2 (0/13) Control 2 (0/13) Days 4 and 7: presence of fibrin in both groups |
? |
|
| |||||
| Olugbuyiro et al., 2010 |
Flabellaria paniculata
Chloroform fraction: 0.0 (100%) 14 days Aqueous fraction: 25.0 ± 3.0% (71.4%) 14 days Control: 87.5 ± 7.5% |
Flabellaria paniculata on noninfected rat wounds
Chloroform fraction: (14.0 ± 0.0%) Aqueous fraction: (21.5 ± 0.5%) Control: (24.5 ± 0.5%) |
? | ? | ? |
|
| |||||
| Süntar et al., 2010 | mm2 (%) Fr.A: 1.60 ± 1.53 (44.4%) Fr.B: 1.59 ± 0.11 (44.8%) Fr.C: 0.99 ± 0.31 (65.6%) Fr.D: 0.77 ± 0.03 (73.3%) Fr.E: 1.98 ± 0.63 (31.3%) Control: 2.88 ± 0.72 (17.5%) |
? | ? | ? | mm2 (%) Fr.A: 21.52 ± 1.15 (13.9%) Fr.B: 24.97 ± 3.18 (32.3%) Fr.C: 25.63 ± 1.43 (35.8%) Fr.D: 26.61 ± 2.05 (40.9%) Fr.E: 22.95 ± 2.73 (21.6%) Control: 18.88 ± 2.67 (16.3%) |
|
| |||||
| Kim et al., 2013 | The ginsenoside Rd-treated wounds were significantly smaller than the wounds treated with control Matrigel on days 6 and 9 | ? | ? | Ginsenoside Rd ↑ proliferation and migration fibroblasts; ginsenoside Rd at 0.1–10 mM ↑ collagen type I protein and ↓ MMP-1 protein in fibroblasts | ? |
|
| |||||
| Chaudhari et al., 2006 | ? | Fraction I: 9 days Fraction II: 23 days Fraction III: 20 days |
? | Fraction I increase in hexosamine Fractions II and III did not reveal increase in the hexosamine content of granulation tissue |
Fraction I: 719.33 g ± 0.88 Fraction II: 572.33 g ± 2.46 Fraction III: 590.33 g ± 1.87 |
|
| |||||
| Swamy et al., 2006 | Embelin: (98.50% ± 1.64) 16 days Control: (85.33% ± 3.66) 16 days |
Epithelialization in days
Embelin: 18.17 ± 1.47 Control: 20.33 ± 2.66 |
? | Granulation tissue showed complete healing with more fibroblasts, collagen, and increased number of blood vessels | Embelin: 528.00 g ± 15.85 Control: 374.67 g ± 5564 |
|
| |||||
| Hernandes et al., 2010 | The 1% ethyl-acetate fraction from Stryphnodendron adstringens did not influence wound contraction | No difference in the length of newly formed epithelium was found between the treated and control wounds | ? | ? | ? |