SVF
Level D· Preclinical EvidenceAnimal Study

An Adipose-Derived Stem Cell Exosome Sheet Promotes Oral Mucosal Wound Healing.

Matar DY., Kang CJ., Panayi AC., Orgill DP., Kao HK.

Animal Study with a reported sample of 8 on Chronic Wound, published in Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
8
PMID
40333367
DOI
10.1089/wound.2024.0216

Abstract (original English)

Oral mucosal wound healing is not completely understood, and effective therapies are lacking. This study explores the potential of an adipose-derived stem cell (ADSC) exosome sheet in enhancing intraoral wound healing in rats. An ADSC exosome sheet derived from Tisseel and rat adipose tissue (ADSC-exo) was applied to 16 rats with 6 mm full-thickness mucosal hard palate wounds. Eight wounds received ADSC-exo with a superficial occlusive dressing (ADSC-exo group), and eight received only an occlusive dressing (control group). Wound closure was monitored on days 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10, with dressings changed every 2 days. On day 10, rats were sacrificed, and wounds ( n = 8 per group) were collected for immunohistochemical analysis. In vitro , four ADSC-exosome concentrations (0, 4.5 × 10 11 , 9 × 10 11 , and 18 × 10 11 exosomes/mL; n = 4 per group) were applied to rat oral mucosal fibroblasts to assess migration speed. ADSC-exo accelerated wound closure (18% ± 5% vs. 35% ± 9% of initial wound area; p = 0.002) and fibroblast migration (for 18 × 10 11 exosomes/mL at 24 h: 29.7% ± 3% vs. 62.2% ± 4% of initial gap area; p < 0.0001) compared with the control. ADSC-exo promoted reepithelialization (87% ± 14% vs. 21% ± 6%; p < 0.0001), proliferation (34 ± 12 vs. 18 ± 7 Ki67+/high-power field [HPF]; p = 0.004), and neovascularization (28 ± 9 vs. 11 ± 5 CD31+/HPF; p = 0.0002) while reducing in

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence comes from animal or laboratory studies and has not been confirmed in humans.

How we grade evidence
AnimalsWound HealingExosomesMouth MucosaRatsAdipose TissueRats, Sprague-DawleyMaleStem CellsCell Movement
Chronic Wound
View on PubMedDOI

Related research