Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Promotive Effects of a Silk Film on Epidermal Recovery from Full-Thickness Skin Wounds

Sugihara, Akira, Sugiura, Kikuya, Morita, Haruo, Ninagawa, Takashi, Tubouchi, Kouzou, Tobe, Ryuukichi, Izumiya, Mamoru, Horio, Takeshi, Abraham, Nader G., Ikehara, Susumu·2000·Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Abstract

We examined the effects of the transparent fibroin film (silk film) on full-thickness skin wounds. Full-thickness dermatotomies (15 mm x 9 mm) were prepared on the dorsal wall of CRJ:CD-1 nu/nu (ICR nu/nu) mice. The area of the wounds dressed with silk film was reduced to 10% of that made by the dermatotomy 14 days after the dermatotomy and were covered with regenerated epidermis 21 days after the dermatotomy. In contrast, less recovery and epidermal regeneration were found 14 days after dermatotomy in the wounds dressed with a conventional hydrocolloid dressing (Duro Active). Furthermore, only partial incomplete epidemal growth was obtained 21 days after dermatotomy. Most importantly, the healing time of wounds dressed with silk film was 7 days shorter than those dressed with DuoActive dressing. The silk film showed an almost similar or slightly better promotive effect as the lyophilized porcine dermis (Alloask D), which is used as a dressing for burns, ulcers, and decubitis. Histologic findings revealed that there was greater collagen regeneration and less inflammation and neutrophil-lymphocyte infiltration of the wounds dressed with silk film than with DuoActive dressing. It is clear that regeneration of the epidermis and dermis of the wound beds covered with silk film was faster than with DuoActive dressing. Finally, silk film is easily obtainable, sterilizable, and transparent, and it allows easy observation of tissue recovery. Therefore, silk film offers advantages over other dressings and may be clinically useful for wound treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22507.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Sugihara, A., Sugiura, K., Morita, H., Ninagawa, T., Tubouchi, K., Tobe, R., Izumiya, M., Horio, T., Abraham, N. G., & Ikehara, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-10
Volume
225
Issue
1
Pages
58-64
ISSN
  • 0037-9727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1373
OpenAlex
W2018482527
Cited by
191
References
0
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Promotive Effects of a Silk Film on Epidermal Recovery from Full-Thickness Skin Wounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22507.x
The paper
Sugihara, A., Sugiura, K., Morita, H., Ninagawa, T., Tubouchi, K., Tobe, R., Izumiya, M., Horio, T., Abraham, N. G., & Ikehara, S. (2000). Promotive Effects of a Silk Film on Epidermal Recovery from Full-Thickness Skin Wounds. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22507.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.