Plant- vs. Bacterial-Derived Cellulose for Wound Healing: A Review

Ruth Naomi, Ruszymah Bt Hj Idrus and Mh Busra Fauzi
Additional contact information
Ruth Naomi: Centre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
Ruszymah Bt Hj Idrus: Centre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
Mh Busra Fauzi: Centre for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 18, 1-25

Abstract: Cellulose is a naturally existing element in the plant’s cell wall and in several bacteria. The unique characteristics of bacterial cellulose (BC), such as non-toxicity, biodegradability, hydrophilicity, and biocompatibility, together with the modifiable form of nanocellulose, or the integration with nanoparticles, such as nanosilver (AgNP), all for antibacterial effects, contributes to the extensive usage of BC in wound healing applications. Due to this, BC has gained much demand and attention for therapeutical usage over time, especially in the pharmaceutical industry when compared to plant cellulose (PC). This paper reviews the progress of related research based on in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials, including the overall information concerning BC and PC production and its mechanisms in wound healing. The physicochemical differences between BC and PC have been clearly summarized in a comparison table. Meanwhile, the latest Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved BC products in the biomedical field are thoroughly discussed with their applications. The paper concludes on the need for further investigations of BC in the future, in an attempt to make BC an essential wound dressing that has the ability to be marketable in the global marketplace.

Keywords: plant cellulose; bacterial cellulose; wound healing; clinical trials; in vivo; in vitro (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6803/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6803/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6803-:d:415362

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().