The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Promotive Effects of a Silk Film on Epidermal Recovery from Full-Thickness Skin Wounds
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Vepari, C., & Kaplan, D. L. (2007) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.013 · Cited by 2,561
In vivo bioresponses to silk proteins
Thurber, A. E., Omenetto, F. G., & Kaplan, D. L. (2015) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.039 · Cited by 453
Silk proteins for biomedical applications: Bioengineering perspectives
Kundu, B., Kurland, N. E., Bano, S., Patra, C., Engel, F. B., Yadavalli, V. K., & Kundu, S. C. (2014) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.09.002 · Cited by 451
Silk fibroin/hydroxyapatite composites for bone tissue engineering
Farokhi, M., Mottaghitalab, F., Samani, S., Shokrgozar, M. A., Kundu, S. C., Reis, R. L., Fatahi, Y., & Kaplan, D. L. (2018) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.10.001 · Cited by 437
Spider and mulberry silkworm silks as compatible biomaterials
Hakimi, O., Knight, D. P., Vollrath, F., & Vadgama, P. (2007) · Composites Part B: Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.06.012 · Cited by 306
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.