3.9 Article

Microbial adherence affinity and clinical characteristics of polypropylene versus silk sutures in oral surgery

Journal

SRPSKI ARHIV ZA CELOKUPNO LEKARSTVO
Volume 146, Issue 5-6, Pages 258-263

Publisher

SRPSKO LEKARSKO DRUSTVO
DOI: 10.2298/SARH170428184D

Keywords

bacterial adherence; oral soft tissue healing; non-absorbable suture materials; oral surgery; real time-PCR

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [175075]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction/Objective The purpose of this study was to compare polypropylene and silk suture materials in terms of bacterial adherence and clinical features including the impact on soft tissue healing. Methods Ten healthy patients were included in this study. Unilateral upper and lower wisdom teeth were extracted at the same time and wounds were sutured with different threads (one monofilament - polypropylene - and one multifilament - silk suture). Stitches were removed seven days postoperatively. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to analyze bacterial adherence. Intraoperative handling and ease of removal were assessed with the help of Visual Analogue Scale. Landry healing index was used for evaluation of soft tissue healing. Results Significantly more pronounced bacterial adherence was found on silk compared to polypropylene sutures (p = 0.005). Superior intraoperative handling properties were registered suturing with polypropylene compared to silk (p = 0.005). Soft tissue healing was significantly better around polypropylene sutures, both on the third and the seventh postoperative day (p = 0.016). Patient discomfort was slightly higher for polypropylene sutures, but without statistical significance. Conclusion Polypropylene suture material showed significantly lower bacterial adherence and superior clinical features compared to silk, including better soft tissue healing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available