Pentoxifylline/Chitosan Films on Wound Healing: In Vitro/In Vivo Evaluation.

This study aimed to develop films of chitosan (CSF) associated with pentoxifylline (PTX) for healing cutaneous wounds. These films were prepared at two concentrations, F1 (2.0 mg/mL) and F2 (4.0 mg/mL), and the interactions between the materials, structural characteristics, in vitro release, and morphometric aspects of skin wounds in vivo were evaluated. The formation of the CSF film with acetic acid modifies the polymeric structure, and the PTX demonstrates interaction with the CSF, in a semi-crystalline structure, for all concentrations. The release for all films was proportional to the concentration, with two phases: a fast one of ≤2 h and a slow one of >2 h, releasing 82.72 and 88.46% of the drug after 72 h, being governed by the Fickian diffusion mechanism. The wounds of the mice demonstrate a reduction of up to 60% in the area on day 2 for F2 when compared to CSF, F1, and positive control, and this characteristic of faster healing speed for F2 continues until the ninth day with wound reduction of 85%, 82%, and 90% for CSF, F1, and F2, respectively. Therefore, the combination of CSF and PTX is effective in their formation and incorporation, demonstrating that a higher concentration of PTX accelerates skin-wound reduction.

Advantages of a combined method of decalcification compared to EDTA.

Decalcification of mineralized tissues is an essential step during tissue processing in the routine histopathology. The time required for complete decalcification, and the effect of decalcifier on cellular and tissue morphology are important parameters which influence the selection of decalcifying agents. In this study, we compared a decalcifying solution (ETDA) composed of both acid and chelating agents to a classical and well-known decalcifying agent (EDTA). To this purpose, the optic density of bone radiographs, residual calcium analysis, bone sample weight, and histological and immunohistochemical analysis were performed. Our data suggest that, similarly to EDTA, the ETDA solution completely removes the calcium ions from the samples enabling easy sectioning. However, unlike the EDTA, this agent takes much less time. Furthermore, both agents showed comparable decalcification efficacy, and similarly, they did not produce cellular, tissue or antigenicity impairments. Therefore, ETDA may be a suitable option when it is necessary an association between a rapid and complete removal of calcium minerals, and a suitable preservation of structure and antigenicity of tissues.