The article Dr. Shinin refers to is just what you were looking for.  My understanding from attending meetings is that skin wound healing people feel that pig skin wound healing is more like human skin wound healing compared to the mouse because of issues related to dermal wound contraction.  The idea I have gotten is that mice can contract wounds really well which makes it harder to study the role of reepithelialization in mouse skin wound healing. 

hello here is a conclusion which shows similarities between humans and mice wound healingJ Vis Exp. 2013 May 28;(75):e50265. doi: 10.3791/50265.

Murine model of wound healing.

Dunn L1, Prosser HC, Tan JT, Vanags LZ, Ng MK, Bursill CA.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated a relatively simple murine model of wound healing that exhibits many of the features observed in human wound healing.

The article can  be obtained in two forms either through pub med or  a visually very pleasant article Journal of Visualized Experiments:

http://www.jove.com.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/pdf/50265/jove-protocol-50265-murine-model-of-wound-healing

Hope that helps to answer your question

Professor K.galil

Dear sir,

This link will may help you in finding your answer about the wound model

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1501115/

Wounds in most animal species except pigs heal via contraction rather than epitheliazation as in humans. To circumvent this a group at Harvard developed a technique to keep the wound open to force it to epithelialize. They create an excisional wound and attach a silicon ring via suture to keep the wound from contracting. You can read about the technique in "Quantitative and reproducible murine model of excisional wound healing. RD Galiano et al., Wound Repair and Regeneration Vol.12, No.4, pg. 485-492.

Sylvia

HI... THIS ARTICLES CAN HELP U

ANIMAL MODELS FOR WOUND REPAIR. J.M. DAVIDSON. ARCH DERMATOL. RES (1998)290

I have more.... 

OR IF U WANT I CAN U ... JUST GIVE ME UR E-MAIL. 

Hi Vasily,

Do you have a reference or two for the last thing you mentioned? It appears that papers seem to simplify to "Mice heal by contraction, Humans by re-epithelialization" virtually always (as is in part seen in the responses here as well.)

I think I understand my confusion now. In Reviews about wound healing (without an explicit restriction to human or mice) contraction is an integral part (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.gate1.inist.fr/pmc/articles/PMC2736861/ ). By contrast many wound healing experiment papers are mainly concerned with the process of "wound closure", in which in mice, when left alone, the panniculosus carnosus layer plays an important role. Additionally, since mice are loose skinned, "normal" contraction via myofibroblasts leads to greater tissue movements than in humans.

So when papers mention that wound contraction is not important for wound healing in humans, they rather refer to wound closure. For the establishment of "normal", tension-resistant scar tissue, contraction is important in both mice and humans (and if gone wrong leads to fibrosis/hypertrophic scars etc.)

Does that sound about right?