Cited by 227Tissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineWound Healing and TreatmentsElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dermal Matrices and Bioengineered Skin Substitutes: A Critical Review of Current Options

Open access
Debels, Heidi, Hamdi, Moustapha, Abberton, Keren, Morrison, Wayne·2015·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over recent decades, scientists and surgeons have collaborated to develop various bioengineered and synthetic products as an alternative to skin grafts. Despite the numerous articles and reviews written about dermal skin substitutes, there is no general consensus. METHODS: This article reviews dermal skin scaffolds used in clinical applications and experimental settings. For scaffold evaluation, we focused on clinical and/or histological results, and conclusions are listed. Explanations for general trends were sought based on existing knowledge about tissue engineering principles and wound healing mechanisms. RESULTS: Decellularized dermis seems to remain the best option with no other acellular scaffold being clinically proven to gain better results yet. In general, chemically cross-linked products were seen to be less effective in skin tissue engineering. Biocompatibility could be enhanced by preseeding substitutes with fibroblasts to allow some natural scaffold remodeling before product application. CONCLUSIONS: Skin substitutes are a useful tool in plastic and reconstructive surgery practices as an alternative to skin grafts. In the choice of substitute, the general plastic surgery principle of replacing like tissue with like tissue seems to be still standing, and products most resembling the natural dermal extracellular matrix should be preferred.

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 · 10.1097/gox.0000000000000219

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bioengineered tissue models mimic native human tissue more closely than 2D cultures.

    “achieving increased biomimicry of native human tissue compared to 2D18,19.”

    From Human disease models in drug development (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Abstract (Conclusions; page unavailable) describes tissue-engineered skin scaffolds as three-dimensional structures, and the Discussion (page unavailable) considers how skin substitutes differ from native human skin. The paper does not compare their resemblance to human tissue with that of 2D cultures, so the claimed improvement over 2D cultures is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Troy, 2013, Eplasty, 13, e14
  2. Bose, 1979, Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 61, 444
  3. Brown, 1993, Am J Pathol, 142, 793
  4. Feldman, 1991, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 173, 1
  5. Truong, 2005, J Burns Wounds, 4, e4
  6. Boyce, 2006, J Trauma, 60, 821

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Debels, H., Hamdi, M., Abberton, K., & Morrison, W.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
  • Debels, Heidi
  • Abberton, Keren
  • Morrison, Wayne
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Published
2015-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e284
ISSN
2169-7574 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972634870
Cited by
227
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6
FWCI
20.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Wound Healing and Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Keywords
dermal scaffolds, acellular scaffolds, skin graft alternatives, wound healing, dermal extracellular matrix, scaffold remodeling, biocompatibility, tissue engineering, reconstructive surgery

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