Search

Significance: Skin inevitably heals with the formation of a fibrotic scar. Patients affected by skin scarring suffer from long-term psychological and physical burdens. Recent Advances: Since the discovery of fetal scarless skin-wound healing, research has hoped to identify and mimic scarless healing for adult skin. Oral mucosa healing in adults provides the closest example to fetal scarless healing. Injuries to the oral mucosa heal with very minimal scarring. Understanding the mechanisms through which this process occurs may bring us closer to achieving scarless healing in adults. Critical Issues: In this review, we summarize the current evidence that illustrates distinct mechanisms involved in oral mucosal healing. We discuss the role of the oral niche in contributing to wound repair. The intrinsic properties of immune cells, fibroblasts, and keratinocytes within the oral mucosa that support regenerative repair are provided. We highlight the contribution of cytokines, growth factors, and chemokine secretion in permitting a scarless mucosal environment. Furthermore, we discuss the role of stem cell-like progenitor populations in the mucosa that may contribute to wound healing. We also provide suggestions for future studies that are needed to achieve scarless healing in adults. Future Directions: Many characteristics of the oral mucosa have been shown to contribute to decreased scarring, but the specific mechanism(s) is unclear. Advancing our understanding of oral healing may yield therapeutic therapies that can be used to overcome dermal scarring.

Significance: Many treatments are utilized in the management of skin scarring; however, difficulties arise due to the high rates of recurrence and the identification of treatment efficacy in each patient, in particular, in the case of raised dermal scarring. Therefore, evaluation of treatments and the provision of objective scar assessment pre-therapy and post-therapy is of paramount importance to identify changes in scar characteristics using noninvasive devices. Recent Advances: There have been a number of emerging noninvasive objective quantitative devices, which assess specific scar parameters such as pliability, volume, color, perfusion, and depth. These can include three-dimensional imaging, optical coherence tomography, in vivo confocal microscopy, full-field laser perfusion imaging, and spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis. Critical Issues: Clinical assessment and grading scales are most commonly used to assess scarring; however, there is a need for more objective quantitative measures to monitor their maturation and response to therapy. Currently, there is no consensus as to which objective measuring device is most optimal when assessing skin scarring. There is a need for a predictor tool that allows early implementation of treatment and addresses diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. Future Directions: Validation of noninvasive objective scar assessment tools is essential as well as further development of technologies. There are currently more modalities that assess physical scar characteristics and only few that measure the physiological parameters. Therefore, the development of a technology that quantifies the metabolic and cellular activity in skin scars is necessary to allow for bespoke strategies for each patient.

Significance: Skin scarring is a permanent, irreversible end point of cutaneous injury. However, not everyone will acquire the same exact scar type. Skin scarring is generally recognized as complex with significant variability in individuals' scar type and response to treatment. Despite these tangible differences in treatment response, to date there has been no simplified approach in defining spectrum of skin scarring in relation to prediction and outcome post-treatment. Thus, in this study we propose that skin scarring consists of distinct endotypes, which is characterized by their specific pathology. Four distinct scar endotypes can be observed: (1) Stretched (flat), (2) Contracted, (3) Atrophic (depressed), and (4) Raised scarring, which can be abbreviated to S.C.A.R. endotypes. Each of these endotypes can certainly include subphenotypes and each phenotype can be present in more than one endotype. To define these endotypes, we also present a structured approach in assessment of all relevant parameters in skin scar evaluation including clinical (scar symptoms and signs) and nonclinical parameters (device measurements of structural, mechanical, and physiological properties of scars as well as gene and protein laboratory studies). Recent Advances: Scars can be phenotypically characterized based on a multitude of parameters assessed; however, not all scar types will share all the same characteristics. This leads to the question of whether skin scarring is a single disease entity with varying phenotypic characteristics or should be classed as several disease entities that have certain similar parameters. We suggest the latter and propose distinct scarring phenotypes arise mainly owing to genetic and environmental susceptibilities associated with the development of each specific scar endotype. Characteristic features of skin scarring, however, can be objectively and quantitively evaluated and used as an aid in the theranostic goal-directed management of scarring. Critical Issues: The concept of identifying different endotypes is key in formulating personalized treatments with improved outcomes beyond what is achieved with current nonspecific approaches in scar management. This approach has gained interest and significant traction in several other medical conditions including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and atopic dermatitis. Future Directions: To begin identifying distinct endotypic features in skin scarring, it is important to have a better understanding of underlying pathological mechanisms leading to further insight into the heterogeneous nature of skin scarring endotypes. This approach may lead to improved theranostic outcomes and further understanding of the pathophysiology of the complex nature of human skin scarring.