Synthetic polymer, hydrogel, and nanofiber dressings

Overview¶

For most partial-thickness burns and donor sites the practical question is not whether to reach for silver, but which moist-wound dressing will close the wound with the fewest painful dressing changes. Synthetic and semisynthetic polymer dressings are the answer to that question. Currently used wound dressings include hydrogels, films, wafers, nanofibers, foams, topical formulations, sponges, and hydrocolloids, and they have largely displaced the open silver-cream-and-gauze regimens that once defined burn wound care ^[1]. There is no universally accepted gold-standard burn dressing ^[32]; the field is a family of materials chosen by depth, exudate, and site rather than a single best product.

What unites these dressings is that they treat the wound bed rather than the bacteria on it. Polymeric hydrogels adhere to tissue, absorb exudate, protect from the environment, can be transparent to permit serial wound evaluation, and in some cases peel off atraumatically at changes ^[2]. That is a different design intent from a silver cream, which is dosed to kill organisms in the eschar. The clinical consequence is a division of labor: polymer dressings keep clean partial-thickness wounds moist and undisturbed while they re-epithelialize, and antimicrobial agents (including silver-loaded versions of these same polymers, covered under [[silver-based-topical-antimicrobials]]) are added when microbial load is the problem. For deeper wounds headed for surgery, the relevant alternatives are biologic and engineered skin substitutes, covered under [[biological-dressings-skin-substitutes]].

Classification¶

Synthetic-polymer dressings sort into a small number of families distinguished by how they handle fluid and whether they carry an active agent.

Hydrogels. Three-dimensional crosslinked polymer networks with high water content, available as amorphous gels, sheets, and impregnated gauzes ^[7]. They donate moisture to dry wounds and support autolytic debridement; chitosan- and cellulose-based hydrogels are crosslinked with synthetic polymers to improve mechanical and physicochemical properties ^[3]. They are the dressing of an essentially dry or lightly exuding superficial burn.

Hydrocolloids. Occlusive wafers (for example DuoDERM) built from a gel-forming inner layer over an outer occlusive film, classically an oxygen-impermeable hydrocolloid backed by polyurethane foam ^[6]. They create a sealed moist pocket and are suited to lightly-to-moderately exuding partial-thickness wounds.

Polyurethane films and foams. Semipermeable films (for example Opsite) are thin, transparent, adhesive membranes for shallow wounds ^[10]. Polyurethane foams (for example Allevyn) combine high absorbency with mechanical protection and are built for exudate ^[3]. Comparative work has placed semi-occlusive polyurethane against hydrocolloid as the two archetypes of the occlusive synthetic dressing ^[5].

Chitosan and cellulose dressings. Naturally derived but engineered into films, hydrogels, sponges, and nanofiber sheets ^[4]. Bacterial (regenerated) nanocellulose sheets behave as a temporary epidermal substitute that re-epithelializes underneath without further changes ^[8]. Chitosan carries intrinsic, if modest, antibacterial activity that pure cellulose lacks.

Electrospun nanofibers and synthetic membranes. Foam, nanofiber, and film systems engineered for heavily exudative or deep wounds ^[3]; electrospun nanofibers mimic the extracellular matrix to accelerate cell migration ^[3]. Synthetic membranes such as Suprathel, a DL-lactic-acid copolymer, and biosynthetic Biobrane occupy the partial-thickness-coverage niche between a simple dressing and a skin substitute ^[20].

Silver- and antimicrobial-loaded composites. Any of the above polymers can be loaded with silver, PHMB, or antibiotics ^[44]. Silver-hydrofiber (Aquacel Ag), silver-alginate-foam (Askina Calgitrol Ag), and silver-impregnated polymers convert a moisture-managing dressing into an antimicrobial one ^[41][42][43]; the silver-specific evidence belongs to [[silver-based-topical-antimicrobials]], and only the polymer-dressing-relevant comparisons are treated here.

Pathophysiology and mechanism¶

The shared mechanism is moist wound healing. Re-epithelialization of partial-thickness wounds accelerates when the wound is kept moist ^[10], and the polymer dressing's job is to maintain that environment without macerating the bed or adhering to it. Hydrogels with a water content above 90% supply that moist environment through autolytic debridement, angiogenesis, fibroblast proliferation, and pain relief, and their cooling and non-adherence make them well suited to partial-thickness burns ^[12]. The same high water content lets a hydrogel act as a transdermal carrier, distributing a loaded antimicrobial across the wound surface while keeping the bed hydrated ^[7].

Fluid handling is what separates the families. Hydrogels donate moisture and manage only moderate exudate; foams combine absorbency with mechanical protection; films are a transparent semipermeable barrier; and composite systems try to integrate these properties at the cost of manufacturing complexity ^[3]. Natural polymers such as chitosan and alginate add biocompatibility and some antimicrobial activity, whereas synthetic variants such as polyurethane contribute mechanical stability ^[3]. Bacterial nanocellulose works by a slightly different route: it conforms to the wound as a temporary epidermal substitute and enables undisturbed re-epithelialization beneath an unchanged dressing ^[8].

The mechanistic limit is the eschar. Hydrogel transdermal delivery depends on passive diffusion, and eschar on a deep burn obstructs that diffusion and degrades the dressing's efficacy ^[7]. This is why these dressings belong to the partial-thickness and donor-site space and why deep full-thickness injuries are managed by excision and grafting rather than by a polymer dressing.

Assessment and selection¶

Selection is a clinical decision driven by depth, exudate, and location. The key determinants for polymer selection are hydrophilicity, adhesion properties, wound depth, exudate volume, and microbial load ^[3]. Rapid and accurate assessment of burn depth in the outpatient setting is itself part of the treatment, because the wrong dressing on a progressing wound can let injury extend deeper into the dermis ^[2].

In practice the matching runs along the exudate axis. A dry or lightly exuding superficial partial-thickness burn tolerates a transparent film or a moisture-donating hydrogel, which also allows the bed to be inspected and cools the wound ^[12]. A moderately exuding partial-thickness wound suits a hydrocolloid or a hydrofiber that gels with absorbed fluid. A heavily exuding wound needs a foam or an alginate, which are built for fluid load; on the donor site, calcium alginate handles the early bleeding and brisk exudate ^[19]. A clean partial-thickness burn expected to heal in two to three weeks is a candidate for a synthetic membrane such as Suprathel or Biobrane that stays in place through closure, whereas a wound with meaningful microbial load calls for an antimicrobial-loaded version or a switch to a topical antimicrobial.

Transparency is a practical selection criterion of its own. A transparent dressing permits regular inspection of the wound bed for signs of infection without disturbing the wound ^[2], and this drives the choice of films and clear membranes for wounds where serial evaluation matters, such as the face and hand.

Management¶

The management evidence for synthetic-polymer dressings comes from comparative trials against the two historical standards: paraffin (tulle-gras) gauze and silver sulfadiazine. The direction of effect is consistent across families and outcomes.

Hydrocolloids versus gauze and silver sulfadiazine¶

Hydrocolloid wafers create an occlusive moist environment associated with less frequent dressing changes ^[23]. In the emergency treatment of small partial-thickness burns, DuoDERM and silver sulfadiazine with Bactigras healed equally well, but the hydrocolloid group needed a mean of three versus eight dressing changes per patient, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.117) ^[9]. The strongest hydrocolloid signal is in operative conversion: in a pediatric cohort, debridement and grafting were required in 43% of paraffin-gauze (Jelonet) patients but only 9% of those managed with DuoDERM, with the lower graft rate persisting after excluding early grafting ^[23]. Hydrocolloids reduced dressing burden against silver cream and reduced operative intervention against gauze.

Films and foams¶

Semipermeable polyurethane film and impregnated gauze produced statistically indistinguishable healing in an outpatient burn trial, with median healing of 10 days for film versus 7 for gauze and residual scarring in 21% versus 8%, neither difference reaching significance ^[10]. The clinical value of the film is the moist, transparent, single-application barrier rather than a healing-speed advantage. Foams trade off against alginates and nanocellulose by exudate handling: against calcium alginate on donor sites, polyurethane foam (Allevyn) generated more total dressing changes from excess exudate, with no difference in healing time or pain ^[35].

Chitosan, cellulose, and synthetic membranes¶

A single-blind randomized trial in deep second-degree burns found chitosan dressing shortened healing time to a mean of 19.5 days versus 24.8 days for the control and improved the day-14 healing percentage and the scar score ^[25]. Bacterial nanocellulose, used as a temporary epidermal substitute, allows undisturbed re-epithelialization without further changes ^[8]. Suprathel, the DL-lactic-acid copolymer membrane, matched Mepilex Ag on time to re-epithelialization (12 days in both arms) while significantly reducing pain in the first 5 days and improving overall scar quality, at higher per-square-centimeter cost ^[13]. A long-term follow-up after enzymatic debridement found Suprathel and paraffin gauze produced comparable 12-month scar outcomes, with Suprathel retained as the center's standard for its reduced change frequency ^[14].

Comparative meta-analytic signal¶

Pooled data favor cellulose and alginate over standard dressings on the metrics that matter at the bedside. A meta-analysis of cellulose dressings found a significantly increased healing rate, shorter hospital stay, and lower dressing-change frequency than standard dressings, with no difference in infection rate ^[15]. A meta-analysis of alginate dressings found shorter healing time (mean difference roughly one day) and lower pain scores than controls with a similar safety profile ^[30]. The recurring pattern is that the synthetic or semisynthetic polymer dressing wins on dressing burden, pain, and modest healing speed while infection rates run comparable.

Complications¶

The dominant safety consideration is what these dressings do not do. Most plain polymer dressings have no antimicrobial activity per se and so might not prevent wound infection ^[33]; bacterial cellulose in particular lacks antibacterial activity, which limits its use unless an antimicrobial agent is added ^[34]. On an exuding or contaminated wound this matters. Occlusion cuts both ways: an occlusive dressing was more susceptible to microbial contamination than exposure (open) management in one partial-thickness series ^[37].

Adverse events directly attributable to the dressings are uncommon across the trial record. Donor-site and burn comparisons of nanocellulose versus foam reported no difference in complication rates ^[11], and randomized trials of oxygen-generating alginate, electrospun PLGA bioveil, and chitosan dressings each reported no dressing-related adverse events ^[25][27][28]. The donor-site exception is worth noting: three patients developed donor-site infections with silver-hydrofiber (Aquacel Ag) in a comparison where plain Xeroform healed faster with better cosmesis despite more pain ^[21]. Cytotoxicity is a property of loaded silver rather than of the carrier polymer; after 24-hour exposure, silver-coated Acticoat and silver-sulfadiazine (Flamazine) cream were toxic to all tested skin-cell lines while a silver hydrogel and PolyMem Silver showed low cytotoxicity, a distinction relevant when choosing a silver-loaded polymer dressing ^[36].

In larger or older patients, the synthetic membranes carry their own caution: in elderly patients and larger TBSA, Biobrane may increase the risk of infection or prolonged hospital stay ^[38], and a controlled donor-site trial found a higher incidence of infection with Biobrane than with scarlet red (57% versus 9.5%) along with delayed separation from the wound ^[39]; surgeons using Biobrane for the first time should ensure the wound is at least as free of bacterial contamination as for a homograft ^[40], which is why these membranes are best reserved for clean, appropriately-sized partial-thickness wounds.

Special considerations¶

Pediatric burns and donor sites¶

The pediatric evidence for synthetic-polymer dressings is more developed than for any other population, and it favors them over both gauze and silver cream on the outcomes parents and surgeons care about: anesthesia exposure, dressing-change pain, and operative conversion. In 190 children, bacterial nanocellulose significantly reduced length of hospitalization and procedures under anesthesia versus polyurethane foam ^[8], a finding reproduced in a prospective cohort where nanocellulose shortened hospital stay, reduced general-anesthesia procedures, and cut inpatient dressing changes ^[11]. In pediatric scald wounds after eschar dermabrasion, bacterial cellulose dressing shortened healing (19.6 versus 24.4 days), required fewer dressing changes, and lowered the skin-grafting rate compared with allogeneic skin ^[29]. A randomized donor-site trial in children identified calcium alginate as the optimum dressing, with the shortest median days to healing among alginate, hydrofiber, and foam ^[19].

Among the silver-loaded polymers used in children, the comparison is one of comfort and cost rather than healing: SilvaSorb hydrogel reduced pain and improved satisfaction versus silver sulfadiazine without changing infection or healing rates ^[16], and Biobrane healed pediatric partial-thickness burns faster than antibiotic gauze ^[20]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of polylactic-acid skin substitutes in pediatric burns concluded they promote timely re-epithelialization, reduce infection, and mitigate scarring, while flagging variability in outcome definitions ^[24].

Facial and hand burns¶

Transparency and atraumatic removal make hydrogel and membrane dressings attractive on the face and hands, where serial inspection and function preservation are paramount. A hydrogel-based dressing mask for second-degree facial burns achieved full re-epithelialization at a mean of 10.9 days with a low mean Vancouver Scar Scale score and no hypertrophic scarring, while reducing pain and facilitating observation ^[26]. On hand burns, synthetic membranes are favored where uninterrupted healing and early mobilization protect function.

Neonates and infants¶

The synthetic membranes and silver-coated polymers extend down to the smallest patients with appropriate caution. In an audit of premature neonates with burns, Acticoat allowed all wounds to re-epithelialize by day 28 with serum silver levels of 0 to 1 micromol per liter and minimal handling because the dressing was changed only every 3 to 7 days ^[12]; the deaths in that series were attributable to extreme prematurity, not the dressing.

Outcomes¶

The outcomes most consistently demonstrated for synthetic-polymer dressings are reduced dressing-change frequency, reduced pain, and modestly faster healing compared with paraffin gauze and silver sulfadiazine, rather than a mortality or infection-rate advantage. Cellulose dressings shortened hospital stay and reduced dressing-change frequency with no change in infection rate ^[15], and alginate dressings shortened healing time and reduced pain with a comparable safety profile ^[30]. Synthetic membranes deliver their benefit through fewer painful changes: Suprathel matched Mepilex Ag on healing and beat it on early pain and scar quality ^[13], and across the broader membrane literature these products buy patient comfort and reduced change burden rather than a large healing-speed gain ^[14]. In larger total body surface burns, a poly-lactic-acid dressing combined with autologous skin cell suspension reduced wound infection (7 versus 32%) versus a contact-layer dressing and shortened length of stay (mean 17 versus 29 days) ^[22].

Scar and cosmetic outcomes are largely comparable among the polymer options and are driven more by time to healing than by the dressing itself. Suprathel and paraffin gauze gave comparable 12-month scar outcomes after enzymatic debridement ^[14], nanocellulose and foam produced comparable POSAS and Vancouver scores in children ^[11], and Suprathel and Mepilex Ag both produced acceptable scars. The operative-conversion outcome is where the dressing choice changes the trajectory most clearly: hydrocolloid and nanocellulose dressings reduce the proportion of children who go on to grafting compared with gauze and allograft ^[23][29]. On donor sites, an oxygen-generating polymer alginate dressing healed faster with less pain and higher satisfaction than Vaseline gauze ^[27], while an electrospun PLGA bioveil placed under autografts was safe and did not reduce graft take ^[28].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

No single best dressing, and weak comparative evidence¶

There is no gold-standard burn dressing that is universally accepted ^[32], and within the hydrogel class specifically, clinical evidence suggests no particular hydrogel is significantly more efficacious than another, implying that cost and ease of use should guide product choice ^[31]. Topical silver sulfadiazine remains a common comparator standard, yet newer occlusive dressings provide faster healing and are often more cost-effective ^[17]. The honest reading of the literature is that the synthetic-polymer dressings are interchangeable enough that the decision is properly made on exudate match, site, cost, and local familiarity rather than on a single winning trial.

The translational gap between bench hydrogels and the bedside¶

A large share of the published work on these materials is preclinical. Antimicrobial-peptide hydrogels, self-healing injectable hydrogels, stimulus-responsive and sensor-integrated "smart" dressings, and stem-cell-seeded gels show promising results in cell culture and animal models ^[3], but their clinical translation faces real bottlenecks, and scaling up and manufacturing hydrogels for commercial products, while ensuring sterility and stability of the active components, remains a challenging process ^[7]. The result is a literature where the volume of mechanism and bench data far outstrips the human comparative-trial evidence; the next-generation hydrogel dressings described as combating multidrug-resistant burn-wound infection are, for now, a clinical need rather than a proven product ^[31].

Antimicrobial loading versus carrier choice¶

A recurring unsettled question is how much of any dressing's clinical effect comes from the polymer versus the loaded antimicrobial. Silver-hydrofiber versus silver-coated nanocrystalline comparisons turn on comfort and cost rather than antimicrobial superiority ^[18], illustrating that where a dressing's antimicrobial effect comes from the loaded agent, the carrier polymer is the secondary variable. Disentangling the carrier from its payload, and defining where a plain moisture-managing dressing is sufficient versus where antimicrobial loading earns its place, remains an open and clinically consequential gap, compounded by variable outcome definitions and moderate heterogeneity across trials ^[24].

References¶

[1] Alven S, Aderibigbe BA. "Chitosan and Cellulose-Based Hydrogels for Wound Management." International journal of molecular sciences 2020. PMID: 33352826. ↩

[2] Cook KA, Martinez-Lozano E, Sheridan R, Rodriguez EK, Nazarian A, Grinstaff MW. "Hydrogels for the management of second-degree burns: currently available options and future promise." Burns & trauma 2022. PMID: 36518878. ↩

[3] Zamani S, Ehterami A, Vaez A, et al. "Natural and synthetic polymers in burn wound healing." Journal of biomaterials science. Polymer edition 2026. PMID: 40588411. ↩

[4] Stoica AE, Chircov C, Grumezescu AM. "Nanomaterials for Wound Dressings: An Up-to-Date Overview." Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2020. PMID: 32532089. ↩

[5] Leipziger LS, Glushko V, DiBernardo B, et al. "Dermal wound repair: role of collagen matrix implants and synthetic polymer dressings." Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 1985. PMID: 3973142. ↩

[6] Leicht P, Siim E, Sorensen B. "Treatment of donor sites--Duoderm or Omiderm?" Burns, including thermal injury 1989. PMID: 2655835. ↩

[7] Goh M, Du M, Peng WR, Saw PE, Chen Z. "Advancing burn wound treatment: exploring hydrogel as a transdermal drug delivery system." Drug delivery 2024. PMID: 38366562. ↩

[8] Maurer K, Renkert M, Duis M, Weiss C, Wessel LM, Lange B. "Application of bacterial nanocellulose-based wound dressings in the management of thermal injuries: Experience in 92 children." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2022. PMID: 34303573. ↩

[9] Afilalo M, Dankoff J, Guttman A, Lloyd J. "DuoDERM hydroactive dressing versus silver sulphadiazine/Bactigras in the emergency treatment of partial skin thickness burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1992. PMID: 1418507. ↩

[10] Poulsen TD, Freund KG, Arendrup K, Nyhuus P, Pedersen OD. "Polyurethane film (Opsite) vs. impregnated gauze (Jelonet) in the treatment of outpatient burns: a prospective, randomized study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1991. PMID: 2031678. ↩

[11] Renkert M, Gunter F, Mohr C, et al. "Nanocellulose significantly reduces number of anesthetics, hospital days, and in-patient dressing changes compared to PU-Foam Dressing: A prospective cohort study in children." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2024. PMID: 39317544. ↩

[12] Rustogi R, Mill J, Fraser JF, Kimble RM. "The use of Acticoat in neonatal burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2005. PMID: 16029933. ↩

[13] Hundeshagen G, Collins VN, Wurzer P, et al. "A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing the Outpatient Treatment of Pediatric and Adult Partial-Thickness Burns with Suprathel or Mepilex Ag." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2018. PMID: 28557869. ↩

[14] Heitzmann W, Mossing M, von Kohout M, et al. "Long-term skin quality and scar formation after enzymatic debridement of deep-dermal burn wounds: A follow-up comparative study of Suprathel and Jelonet." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2026. PMID: 41274105. ↩

[15] Hill T, Zafar AQ, Ellenbogen TD, et al. "The efficacy of cellulose dressings in burn wound management: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 39721087. ↩

[16] Glat PM, Kubat WD, Hsu JF, et al. "Randomized clinical study of SilvaSorb gel in comparison to Silvadene silver sulfadiazine cream in the management of partial-thickness burns." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2009. PMID: 19165109. ↩

[17] Lloyd EC, Rodgers BC, Michener M, Williams MS. "Outpatient burns: prevention and care." American family physician 2012. PMID: 22230304. ↩

[18] Verbelen J, Hoeksema H, Heyneman A, Pirayesh A, Monstrey S. "Aquacel Ag dressing versus Acticoat dressing in partial thickness burns: a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 100 patients. Part 1: burn wound healing." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24045072. ↩

[19] Brenner M, Hilliard C, Peel G, et al. "Management of pediatric skin-graft donor sites: a randomized controlled trial of three wound care products." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2015. PMID: 25185932. ↩

[20] Lesher AP, Curry RH, Evans J, et al. "Effectiveness of Biobrane for treatment of partial-thickness burns in children." Journal of pediatric surgery 2011. PMID: 21929986. ↩

[21] Haith LR, Stair-Buchmann ME, Ackerman BH, et al. "Evaluation of Aquacel Ag for Autogenous Skin Donor Sites." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2015. PMID: 25501785. ↩

[22] Larson BM, Elkady D, Sharma S, et al. "Comparative results of autologous skin cell suspension combined with a contact layer dressing versus autologous skin cell suspension and a poly-lactic acid dressing in larger total body surface burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2024. PMID: 38704317. ↩

[23] Martin FT, O'Sullivan JB, Regan PJ, McCann J, Kelly JL. "Hydrocolloid dressing in pediatric burns may decrease operative intervention rates." Journal of pediatric surgery 2010. PMID: 20223327. ↩

[24] Nguyen AT, Chikoti R, Bell D. "Polylactic Acid Skin Substitute in Pediatric Burn Management: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2026. PMID: 40684799. ↩

[25] Hu J, Lin Y, Cui C, et al. "Clinical efficacy of wet dressing combined with chitosan wound dressing in the treatment of deep second-degree burn wounds: A prospective, randomised, single-blind, positive control clinical trial." International wound journal 2023. PMID: 35922093. ↩

[26] Ou KL, Tzeng YS, Chiao HY, et al. "Clinical Performance of Hydrogel-based Dressing in Facial Burn Wounds: A Retrospective Observational Study." Annals of plastic surgery 2021. PMID: 33438951. ↩

[27] Tong L, Liu H, Xu X, et al. "Effects of polymer oxygenated alginate dressings for healing skin graft donor areas: A phase III randomized controlled trial." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2026. PMID: 41713054. ↩

[28] Perez-Del-Caz MD, Vanaclocha N, Sepulveda Sanchis P, et al. "Use of an electrospun bioveil is safe and does not decrease skin graft take on burn wounds: A randomised, controlled clinical trial." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 40014884. ↩

[29] Zhao R, Zhao C, Zhang Y, Wan Y, Wang Y. "Retrospective comparison of postoperative dressing after eschar dermabrasion on paediatric scald wounds: Bacterial cellulose dressing and allogenic skin." International wound journal 2024. PMID: 37989716. ↩

[30] Lou J, Xiang Z, Zhu X, et al. "Evaluating the therapeutic efficacy and safety of alginate-based dressings in burn wound and donor site wound management associated with burn surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials." BMC surgery 2025. PMID: 40380141. ↩

[31] Eisenbud D, Hunter H, Kessler L, Zulkowski K. "Hydrogel wound dressings: where do we stand in 2003?" Ostomy/wound management 2003. PMID: 14652421. ↩

[32] Dhaliwal K, Lopez N. "Hydrogel dressings and their application in burn wound care." British journal of community nursing 2018. PMID: 30156874. ↩

[33] Surowiecka A, Strużyna J, Winiarska A, Korzeniowski T. "Hydrogels in Burn Wound Management-A Review." Gels (Basel, Switzerland) 2022. PMID: 35200503. ↩

[34] Jabbari F, Babaeipour V. "Bacterial cellulose as an ideal potential treatment for burn wounds: A comprehensive review." Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society 2024. PMID: 38445725. ↩

[35] Higgins L, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Cleland H. "Split-thickness skin graft donor site management: a randomized controlled trial comparing polyurethane with calcium alginate dressings." International wound journal 2012. PMID: 22051247. ↩

[36] Boonkaew B, Kempf M, Kimble R, Cuttle L. "Cytotoxicity testing of silver-containing burn treatments using primary and immortal skin cells." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2014. PMID: 24767717. ↩

[37] Soltan Dallal MM, Safdari R, Emadi Koochak H, et al. "A comparison between occlusive and exposure dressing in the management of burn wound." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 26970838. ↩

[38] Krezdorn N, Könneker S, Paprottka FJ, et al. "Biobrane versus topical agents in the treatment of adult scald burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 27507189. ↩

[39] Prasad JK, Feller I, Thomson PD. "A prospective controlled trial of Biobrane versus scarlet red on skin graft donor areas." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1987. PMID: 3312216. ↩

[40] Gonce S, Miskell P, Waymack JP. "A comparison of Biobrane vs. homograft for coverage of contaminated burn wounds." Burns, including thermal injury 1988. PMID: 3265886. ↩

[41] Caruso DM, Foster KN, Hermans MH, Rick C. "Aquacel Ag in the management of partial-thickness burns: results of a clinical trial." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2004. PMID: 14726745. ↩

[42] Opasanon S, Muangman P, Namviriyachote N. "Clinical effectiveness of alginate silver dressing in outpatient management of partial-thickness burns." International wound journal 2010. PMID: 20860635. ↩

[43] Alkhalil A, Day A, Monger KW, et al. "Hydroconductive and silver-impregnated foam dressings: a comparison." Journal of wound care 2017. PMID: 28704172. ↩

[44] Lenselink E, Andriessen A. "A cohort study on the efficacy of a polyhexanide-containing biocellulose dressing in the treatment of biofilms in wounds." Journal of wound care 2011. PMID: 22240848. ↩