Table 2.
The comparison of traditional gauze and different alginate dressings.
| Wound Dressing | Composition | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gauze | Purified cotton; | Cheap and easy to obtain; | Frequent changing and do not provide a moist environment for the wound [90]; |
| Sponge | Porous PVA + alginate composite foams [102]; | High porosity and surface area [102]; | Need a second layer of dressing to fix [103]; |
| Alginate + graphene oxide +PVA [104]; | Comfortable, no adhesion to the wound, and low replacement frequency; | Cannot be used for infected wounds; | |
| Nanofiber | Alginate +PVA + ZnO [105]; | Strong absorption capacity [106]; | Nonadherent, require secondary dressings [40]; |
| Alginate+ PEO + lecithin [107]; | No adhesion to the wound; Simulating ECM structure [92]; |
Maybe cause dehydration and dryness of the wound, and difficult to remove after using for too long [108]; | |
| Hydrogel | Alginate + chitosan [73]; | Provide moisture to the wound and maintain a moist wound environment [90]; | Poor mechanical properties; |
| More examples, see alginate hydrogel part. | Facilitates cell migration [108]. | Cause skin maceration at swollen state [109]. |
Note: for abbreviations, refer to Abbreviations Part at the end of the text.