Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMedOpen access

Comparison of Tissue-Engineered Dermis with Micronized Adipose Tissue and Artificial Dermis for Facial Reconstruction Following Skin Cancer Resection.

Lee KI., Song WS., Han SK., Moon KC., Jeong SH., Dhong ES.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 30 on Scar, published in Bioengineering (Basel) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Laboratory Study
Journal
Bioengineering (Basel) (2025)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
30
Source database
PubMed
PMID
40001665
PMCID
PMC11851542
DOI
10.3390/bioengineering12020145

Abstract (original English)

Our group has previously demonstrated that tissue-engineered dermis containing cultured fibroblasts or adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction cells is superior to artificial dermis in terms of scar quality for covering facial defects. However, using these cells for clinical applications requires Food and Drug Administration approval and involves complex procedures for cell culture or isolation. This retrospective study aimed to compare effects of tissue-engineered dermis containing micronized adipose tissue (MAT) and artificial dermis for facial reconstruction. Tissue-engineered dermis consisting of MAT seeded on artificial dermis was applied in 30 cases, while artificial dermis without MAT was grafted in 35 cases. Healing time and severities of scar contraction, color mismatch, and landmark distortion at one year after healing were evaluated. Wounds in the tissue-engineered dermis group re-epithelialized in 30.0 ± 4.3 days compared to 34.3 ± 5.4 days in the artificial dermis group ( p < 0.05). The average dE2000 score in color mismatch analysis was 4.9 ± 1.7 in the tissue-engineered dermis group and 5.1 ± 1.7 in the artificial dermis group ( p = 0.57). The extent of scar contraction was 16.2 ± 12.3% in the tissue-engineered dermis group and 23.2 ± 12.8% in the artificial dermis group ( p < 0.05). The average severity grade of landmark distortion was 0.20 ± 0.50 in the tissu

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 from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research