Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMC

Developing improved tissue-engineered buccal mucosa grafts for urethral reconstruction

Simsek A., Bullock AJ., Roman S., Chapple CR., Macneil S.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Can Urol Assoc J (2018) — 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
Can Urol Assoc J (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29405909
PMCID
PMC5966936
DOI
10.5489/cuaj.4826
Citations
10

Abstract (original English)

Introduction We aimed to compare alternative synthetic scaffolds suitable for future implantation and to examine the use of an inhibitor of lysyl oxidase (beta-amino-propionitrile [β-APN]) to reduce contraction in these implants. Methods Three synthetic scaffolds were compared to natural dermis as substrates for the production of tissue-engineered skin. For natural dermis, Euroskin was used to provide a cell-free cadaveric dermis. Synthetic scaffolds consisted of microfibrous poly-L-lactic acid (PLA), nanofibrous poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), and a micro-/nanofibrous trilayer of PLA-PHBV-PLA. The latter were all electrospun and then all four scaffolds (three synthetic, one natural) were placed in six well plates. A culture well was formed on the scaffold using a 1 cm diameter stainless steel ring and 1.5×10 5 oral fibroblasts were seeded one side; after two days of culture, the ring was placed on the other side of the scaffolds and 3×10 5 oral keratinocytes were seeded on to the scaffolds and cultured with keratinocytes uppermost. After a further two days of culture, scaffolds were cut to 1 cm 2 and raised to an air-liquid interface on stainless steel grids; some were treated with 200 μg/mL β-APN throughout the culture period (28 days). Contraction in vitro was assessed by serial digital photography of cell-seeded scaffolds and cell-free scaffolds three t

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