FABRICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT COMPOSITE BIOMATERIAL SCAFFOLDS FOR SKIN REPAIR AND REGENERATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ijap.2026v18i2.56532Keywords:
Tissue repair, Wound healing, Chitosan, Gelatin, Sodium alginate, Biomaterial scaffoldsAbstract
Objective: The healing of a wound in the shortest possible time, with minimal pain and discomfort, is the prime objective of wound management. This study was focused to prepare and compare Chitosan and Gelatin polymers with sodium alginate (CS and GS) separately in the form of Composite scaffolds.
Methods: Solvent casting was chosen to prepare six different composite scaffolds in three stages, containing different proportions of chitosan: sodium alginate and gelatin: sodium alginate. The best among 6 scaffolds prepared in stage-1 was selected to study the effect of plasticizer (ethylene glycol) in 3 different concentrations in stage 2. The best of the different scaffolds of stage 2 was used to study the effect of cross-linking agent (CaCl2) in 2 different concentrations in stage 3. The best of different scaffolds of stage 3 was used for the evaluation of in vitro antibacterial activity and in vivo wound healing activity.
Results: Results of the study revealed that the increase in sodium alginate concentration shown the best physico-mechanical properties in both CS and GS, which further acquired the best properties with selected highest concentrations of crosslinker and plasticizer. Folding endurance of CGS11 and CCS11 scaffolds were found to be 363±0.57 and 353±18.05, respectively. CCS and CGS scaffolds showed better zone of inhibition against both Gram-positive and negative bacteria. The hydroxyproline and hexosamine contents released from group treated with CGS11 on day 11 were 4.369±0.59, 2.045±0.001, respectively which were found higher than contents released from groups treated with CCS 11 (2.484±0.05 and 1.478±0.001). Percentage wound contraction on day 14 of CGS11 and CCS 11 was found to be 99.95±4.97% and 95.75±3.64%, respectively. Photography of wounds and histopathological studies revealed that the experimental group IV treated with CGS showed better and faster healing than the control group and group treated with CCS 11.
Conclusion: Present study concluded that, among all formulations, the CGS11 scaffold exhibited superior wound contraction and histological regeneration compared to CCS11. Composite bio scaffolds can be efficiently used for wound healing to replace synthetic antibiotics. The Composition of bioscaffolds with chitosan and gelatin in combination with sodium alginate highly impacts and improves the physico-mechanical and therapeutic properties of the scaffolds, skin repair and regeneration.
References
1. Stephane FF, Jules BK, Batiha GE, Ali I, Bruno LN. Extraction of bioactive compounds from medicinal plants and herbs. Nat Med Plants. 2022;147. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.98602.
2. Habanjar O, Diab Assaf M, Caldefie Chezet F, Delort L. 3D cell culture systems: tumor application advantages and disadvantages. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(22):12200. doi: 10.3390/ijms222212200, PMID 34830082.
3. Serrano Aroca A, Cano Vicent A, Sabater I Serra RS, El-Tanani M, Aljabali A, Tambuwala MM. Scaffolds in the microbial resistant era: fabrication materials properties and tissue engineering applications. Mater Today Bio. 2022;16:100412. doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100412, PMID 36097597.
4. Li Z, Lin Z. Recent advances in polysaccharide-based hydrogels for synthesis and applications. Aggregate. 2021;2(2):e21. doi: 10.1002/agt2.21.
5. Abbasi AR, Sohail M, Minhas MU, Khaliq T, Kousar M, Khan S. Bioinspired sodium alginate-based thermosensitive hydrogel membranes for accelerated wound healing. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;155:751-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.03.248, PMID 32246960.
6. Varaprasad K, Jayaramudu T, Kanikireddy V, Toro C, Sadiku ER. Alginate-based composite materials for wound dressing application: a mini review. Carbohydr Polym. 2020;236:116025. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116025, PMID 32172843.
7. Badekar R, Bodke V, Tekade BW, Phalak SD. An overview on oral thin films: methodology characterization and current approach. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2024;16(4):1-10. doi: 10.22159/ijpps.2024v16i4.50386.
8. Singh BN, Veeresh V, Mallick SP, Jain Y, Sinha S, Rastogi A. Design and evaluation of chitosan/chondroitin sulfate/nano-bioglass based composite scaffold for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;133:817-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.107, PMID 31002908.
9. Eslami Z, Elkoun S, Robert M, Adjalle K. A review of the effect of plasticizers on the physical and mechanical properties of alginate-based films. Molecules. 2023;28(18):6637. doi: 10.3390/molecules28186637, PMID 37764413.
10. Wang L, Wang C, Wu S, Fan Y, Li X. Influence of the mechanical properties of biomaterials on degradability cell behaviors and signaling pathways: current progress and challenges. Biomater Sci. 2020;8(10):2714-33. doi: 10.1039/D0BM00269K, PMID 32307482.
11. Hamedi H, Moradi S, Hudson SM, Tonelli AE, King MW. Chitosan based bioadhesives for biomedical applications: a review. Carbohydr Polym. 2022;282:119100. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.119100, PMID 35123739.
12. Li J, Zhuang S. Antibacterial activity of chitosan and its derivatives and their interaction mechanism with bacteria: current state and perspectives. Eur Polym J. 2020;138:109984. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109984.
13. Wathoni N, Shan CY, Shan WY, Rostinawati T, Indradi RB, Pratiwi R. Characterization and antioxidant activity of pectin from mangosteen rind. Heliyon. 2019;5(8):e02101. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02299.
14. Derkach SR, Voron’ko NG, Sokolan NI, Kolotova DS, Kuchina YA. Interactions between gelatin and sodium alginate: UV and FTIR studies. J Dispers Sci Technol. 2020;41(5):690-8. doi: 10.1080/01932691.2019.1611437.
15. Lapomarda A, De Acutis A, De Maria C, Vozzi G. Pectin-based scaffolds for tissue engineering applications. In: Masuelli MA, editor. Pectins–the new-old polysaccharides. 2nd ed. London: IntechOpen; 2021. p. 146-216.
16. Nordin NN, Aziz NK, Naharudin I, Anuar NK. Effects of drug-free pectin hydrogel films on thermal burn wounds in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(14):2873. doi: 10.3390/polym14142873, PMID 35890648.
17. Ibrahim N, Mohamed IN, Mohamed N, Mohd Ramli ES, Shuid AN. The effects of aqueous extract of Labisia Pumila (Blume) Fern Vill.-Var. Alata on wound contraction, hydroxyproline content and histological assessments in superficial partial thickness of second-degree burn model. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:968664. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.968664, PMID 36313379.
18. Mojally M, Sharmin E, Alhindi Y, Obaid NA, Almaimani R, Althubiti M. Hydrogel films of methanolic Mentha piperita extract and silver nanoparticles enhance wound healing in rats with diabetes type I. J Taibah Univ Sci. 2022;16(1):308-16. doi: 10.1080/16583655.2022.2054607.
19. Keerthana M, Madeena D, Vidyavathi M, Kumar RS, Devasena Y. Development and characterization of curcumin-loaded chitosan–pectin composite bio-scaffolds. BPAS-Z. 2024;43B(2S):449–65.
20. Nagahama H, Maeda H, Kashiki T, Jayakumar R, Furuike T, Tamura H. Preparation and characterization of novel chitosan/gelatin membranes using chitosan hydrogel. Carbohydr Polym. 2009;76(2):255-60. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.10.015.
21. Jimenez Gomez CP, Cecilia JA. Chitosan: a natural biopolymer with a wide and varied range of applications. Molecules. 2020;25(17):3981. doi: 10.3390/molecules25173981, PMID 32882899.
22. Diaz Montes E, Castro Munoz R. Trends in chitosan as a primary biopolymer for functional films and coatings manufacture for food and natural products. Polymers (Basel). 2021;13(5):767. doi: 10.3390/polym13050767, PMID 33804445.
23. Anal AK, Stevens WF, Remunan Lopez C. Ionotropic cross-linked chitosan microspheres for controlled release of ampicillin. Int J Pharm. 2006;312(1-2):166-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.01.043, PMID 16497452.
24. Archana D, Upadhyay L, Tewari RP, Dutta J, Huang YB, Dutta PK. Chitosan–pectin–alginate scaffold for tissue engineering. Int J Biotechnol. 2013;12(4):475-82.
25. Sharma UK. Disposable contact lens-based ocular delivery of moxifloxacin. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2021;14(11):105-11. doi: 10.22159/ajpcr.2021.v14i11.43090.
26. Foda NH, El-Laithy HM, Tadros MI. Implantable biodegradable sponges: effect of interpolymer complex formation of chitosan with gelatin on the release behavior of tramadol hydrochloride. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2007;33(1):7-17. doi: 10.1080/03639040600975188, PMID 17192246.
27. Jimenez Gomez CP, Cecilia JA. Chitosan: a natural biopolymer with a wide and varied range of applications. Molecules. 2020;25(17):3981. doi: 10.3390/molecules25173981, PMID 32882899.
28. Rotta J, Minatti E, Barreto PL. Determination of structural and mechanical properties, diffractometry and thermal analysis of chitosan and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) films plasticized with sorbitol. Cienc Tecnol Aliment. 2011;31(2):450-5. doi: 10.1590/S0101-20612011000200026.
29. Shahram E, Sadraie SH, Kaka G, Khoshmohabat H, Hosseinalipour M, Panahi F. Evaluation of chitosan-gelatin films for use as postoperative adhesion barrier in rat cecum model. Int J Surg. 2013;11(10):1097-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.09.012, PMID 24090691.
30. Jahit IS, Nazmi I. Preparation and physical properties of gelatin/CMC/chitosan films. Int Food Res J. 2016;23(3):1068-74.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2026 MORUSU KEERTHANA, KAMMARI RADHA, MARUVAJALA VIDYAVATHI, RAYADURGAM VENKATA SURESH KUMAR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.