Table 2.

Advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used dressings to treat second-degree burns. Information from [6, 14, 21]

	Advantages	Disadvantages	Examples of commercially available optionsa
Dressing pads	• Low cost • Antibacterial protection • Ideal for clean and dry wounds	• Requires frequent dressing change and tape to secure the pad • Changing dressing disrupts the wound bed and may be painful • Not for wounds with high exudates	Xeroform™
Antimicrobial dressings	• Low cost • Minimize bacterial colonization	• Cytotoxicity may cause would healing delay • Constant removal may be traumatic, disrupting the granulation tissue	Acticoat™
Hydrocolloid dressings	• Semi-permeable molecules swell with exudates and form a gel to protect against bacteria and moisture • Can be easily detached • Ideal for areas of great friction	• Destruction of dressing results in unpleasant color and odor often confused with infection • Not capable of absorbing big amounts of exudate	Duoderm™, Urgotul™
Silicon-coated nylon dressings	• Easy and atraumatic removal • Protect new tissue growth	• Not for wounds with high exudates • Sensitivity has been reported to silicone	Mepitel™
Hydrofiber dressings	• Moist microenvironment promotes healing	• High cost • Destruction of dressing results in unpleasant color and odor often confused with infection	Aquacel Ag™
Hydrogels	• Outer surface impermeable to bacteria and water • Transparent structure allows wound visualization without dressing removal • Flexible and easy to detach • Assists in autolytic debridement	• Low absorption capacity usually demands secondary dressing • Maceration can occur if exudate is abundant	IntraSite™, Nu-Gel™

^aCommonly used wound dressings for burns according to the American Academy of Family Physicians, The American Academy of Dermatology and Burn Care & Research [7, 20, 22]