Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 17;8(6):rbab048. doi: 10.1093/rb/rbab048

Table 1.

Comparison of materials forms, methods, and efficacy with other biomaterials used in the treatment of cutaneous wounds 

Materials Forms Method Effects Year References
VSFNPs Scaffolds Chemical crosslinking Inhibit bone infections and drug slow release 2017 [54]
PEGS–FA Hydrogel Chemical crosslinking In vivo blood clotting, antibacterial, anti-oxidant and electroactive dressing 2017 [55]
SF Scaffolds Lyophilization Promote neovascularization and cell migration 2018 [5]
SF Hydrogel Self-assembly Promote proliferation of fibroblasts and migration of keratinocytes 2018 [56]
MHA/TPEG Hydrogel Photopolymerization 2018 [57]
PAF Films Chemical crosslinking Promoted the epithelialization and well-organized collagen deposition 2019 [58]
GT–DA/CHI/CNT Hydrogel Chemical crosslinking Hemostatic, antioxidant and antimicrobial 2019 [59]
QHM Hydrogel Chemical crosslinking Hemostasis and antibacterial 2019 [60]
SF/FGF1 Hydrogel Sonication Promote the wound healing 2019 [12]
BC–MMT–Ag Hydrogel Chemical crosslinking Inhibit growth in agar plates and biofilm formation 2020 [61]
DABH Hydrogel Chemical crosslinking Hemostasis and wound healing. 2020 [62]
MHA/MaPVA

Nanofibers

Membrane

Photocrosslinking Promote the cell attachment 2019 [63]
ACC@Fe2+/BML-CaSi-GP Scaffolds Chemical crosslinking Antitumor and tissue repair 2021 [64]
Ag–AV–SF Hydrogel Photocrosslinking Promote the cell proliferation and migration, inhibit the immune reaction. 2021 This work