Page 294 - IJB-8-4

3D Printed Dressings for Burn Wound Treatment
groups required sharp instruments for the removal of keeps the wound adequately moisturized. As discussed
necrotic tissue. The sharp debridement as an invasive above, continuous hydration and autolytic debridement
procedure slows down the healing time and results in are two key features of burn wound treatment. As shown
significant pain with further analgesia administration. in Figures 12-13 and Table 3, the non-printed hydrogel
The non-adhesive surface of the 3D-printed dressings group is not capable of continuous hydration due to the
keeps the surface from sticking to the wound, with no pain fast and uncontrolled release of water molecules in the
or harm to the GT or epithelialization during dressing first hours, which is due to the lack of crosslinks within
removal. The non-printed hydrogel is required to be the alginate chains as well as non-porous amorphous
rinsed rigorously to clean the wound surface. The control gel compared to the 3D-printed dressing group. The
dressing requires intensive force and sharp debridement uncontrolled hydration activity causes wound maceration
to pull off from the wound surface, resulting in trauma, (i.e., excessive water absorption in the wound) with an
bleeding, and significant damage to the healing tissue. elevated risk of infection, bacterial load, and wound
The porous surface and higher mechanical integrity dehydration after a few days [52,53] . Lack of continuous
of the 3D-printed dressings are associated with the hydration in the non-printed treatment group indicates
autolytic debridement and non-adhesive surface of the that this sample cannot adequately moisturize the wound
dressings, as well as the continuous water donation that for 7 days. The dry surface of petrolatum gauze in the

Figure 12. Wound healing analysis over 4 weeks (n = 6). Gross examination of wound healing. Wound images from control and treatment
groups. 3D-printed dressings showed less necrotic tissue and smoother wound margins.

Table 3. Comparison between treatment groups and control group
Dressing Dressing Dressing Moist wound Secondary Necrotic Autolytic Sharp Wound
group application removal healing trauma tissue debridement debridement margin
Control Easy Very Not seen Extremely >50% Not seen required Thick
sticky crust
Non-printed Easy Sticky Yes, short-term Slightly <10% Partially Partially Sloping
hydrogel required
3D-printed Easy Easy Yes, continuous Not seen Not seen Yes Not required Smooth,
dressing flat

286 International Journal of Bioprinting (2022)–Volume 8, Issue 4