A review of hydrofluoric acid burn management

McKee, Daniel; Thoma, Achilleas; Bailey, Kristy; Fish, Joel

doi:10.4172/plastic-surgery.1000854

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CG gel is suitable as a first-aid treatment for injuries due to its easy administration; however, both the gel and calcium penetrate poorly into tissue, which also limits their use for treating fluoride ions in deep tissues [15]. Although local tissue damage could be addressed, water flushes and neutralizers may not prevent systemic toxicity [4,12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After 48 h, the cells in the CG group appeared slender and with an unclear nucleolus and showed significantly decreased cell viability compared to those in the other two groups. In theory, the CG gel could address dissociated fluoride ions on the cell surface and prevent cell death [4]. However, some data have indicated that the CG gel does not adjust pH values; thus, it could not block hydrogen ion penetration into deep tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cloudy and creamy blisters may gradually occur, with ulcers and tissue necrosis developing in the final stage [2,3]. HF burns are currently managed by removing HF, preventing systemic toxicity, applying supportive treatment, and managing local infection [4]. The common treatment methods include flushing with normal saline, the application of topical calcium ointments, the injection of calcium solutions, and even the surgical removal of affected parts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chitosan-based hydrogels to treat hydrofluoric acid burns and prevent infection

Huang

Yeh

et al. 2021

Drug Deliv. and Transl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an urgent need for treatments for hydrofluoric acid (HF) burns and their derivative problems that prevent hydrogen ion dissociation and fluoride ion binding to tissues. This study evaluated the ability of chitosan-based hydrogels combined with a buffer solution containing either boric acid or Tris and calcium gluconate (CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG) to repair HF burn wounds and prevent wound infections. We assessed calcium release rates and biocompatability and constructed a mouse HF burn model to assess the tissue repair effects of the hydrogels. Finally, we performed disc diffusion tests from burn tissue and quantified the bacterial counts to assess the anti-infection properties of the hydrogels. Calcium was gradually released in the CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG groups (73% and 43%, respectively, after 48 h). The cell viabilities at 48 h after HF burn in these groups were significantly higher than those in the phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and CG-treated groups. Histopathological evaluation showed a clear boundary between the epidermal and dermal layers in both CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG-treated groups, indicating their effectiveness in tissue repair. In the disc diffusion test, CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG exhibited larger inhibition zones against Acinetobacter baumannii than those for PBS and CG. The bacterial counts on HF burn wounds were significantly lower in the CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG-treated groups than those in the PBS and CG-treated groups. The in vitro studies demonstrated the biocompatibility and antimicrobial effects of the CHS-BA-CG and CHS-Tris-CG hydrogels. Both gels also demonstrated tissue repair and anti-infection effects. Thus, chitosan-based hydrogels may be candidates for HF burn therapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chitosan-based hydrogels to treat hydrofluoric acid burns and prevent infection

Huang

Yeh

et al. 2021

Drug Deliv. and Transl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bur grinding (BG) in composites and acid etching in ceramics are standard procedures for enhancing bond strength and removing contaminated surfaces in repair process (Akyil, Yilmaz, Karaalioglu, & Duymus, 2010; Kirmali, Kapdan, Harorli, Barutcugil, & Ozarslan, 2015). However, tissue contact with HF may cause severe burns (McKee, Thoma, Bailey, & Fish, 2014). Therefore, using HF for intra‐oral repair of the restorations has a potential risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair bond strength and surface topography of resin‐ceramic and ceramic restorative blocks treated by laser and conventional surface treatments

Bayraktar

Arslan

Demirtag

2020

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study intended to compare the repair bond strength of computer-aided design/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks consisting of resin and feldspathic ceramics following different surface treatments using the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test. Ten specimens were prepared with 4 mm height for Vita Enamic (VE), Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Mark II (VM), and thermocycled (10,000 cycle, 5-55 C). Each material was categorized into one of five subgroups according to following surface treatments: (a) bur grinding (BG), (b) hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), (c) neodymiumdoped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG or NY), (d) erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG or EY), and (e) erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG or ECY) laser conditioning. After surface treatment procedures, specimens were properly restored to 4 mm high with a micro-hybrid composite resin. Bar specimens (1 × 1 × 8 mm) were obtained using a low-speed cutting machine and then thermocycled (10,000 cycle, 5-55 C). The μTBS was tested at 1 mm/min crosshead speed, and failure modes were evaluated. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. LU-BG showed significantly higher μTBS (32.94 ± 5.80 MPa) compared to LU-laser groups (p < .05). VE-BG showed significantly higher μTBS (22.06 ± 4.26 MPa) compared to other VE groups (p < .05). Among the laser groups, the NY laser produced the lowest (p < .05) μTBS for LU (13.42 ± 3.44 MPa) and VE (2.27 ± 0.85 MPa), while EY showed the highest (p < .05).Laser-treated VM groups were all prefailured. VM-HF produced a higher μTBS (18.73 ± 3.75 MPa) than VM-BG (5.05 ± 1.76 MPa) (p < .05).

show abstract

“…Although these methods provide short-step approaches to 1, they have several disadvantages from the viewpoint of cost/safety of reagents. In particular, 3 is still expensive and concentrated aqueous HF is notoriously toxic (Mckee et al, 2014). We report here a safe, low-cost, two-step method for the synthesis of 1a using calcium carbide CaC 2 (7) as an ethynyl group source.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%