Characteristics of Suture Materials Used in Oral Surgery: Systematic Review.
Bacterial adhesion
Inflammation
Suture
Tissue reaction
Journal
International dental journal
ISSN: 1875-595X
Titre abrégé: Int Dent J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0374714
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
02
10
2021
revised:
12
01
2022
accepted:
10
02
2022
pubmed:
21
3
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
20
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this review was to evaluate the most used suture materials with regards to their inflammatory response, their bacterial adhesion, and their physical properties when used to close oral wounds. Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences, and OVID) were searched to retrieve relevant studies from January 1, 2000, to January 31, 2020. Out of the 269 articles, only 13 studies were selected as they were relevant and met the systematic review's protocol. These studies showed that almost all suture materials studies (catgut, polyglycolic acid [PGA] sutures, nylon, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and silk sutures) caused bacterial adherence and tissue reaction. In nylon and chromic catgut, the number of bacteria accumulated was lowest. Silk and nylon were found to be more impacted than catgut and PGA in terms of physical characteristics such as tensile strength. PGA, on the other hand, was said to be the most susceptible to knot unwinding. Following an oral surgical operation, all sutures revealed varied degrees of irritation and microbial accumulation. Nonresorbable monofilament synthetic sutures, however, exhibited less tissue response and less microbial accumulation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this review was to evaluate the most used suture materials with regards to their inflammatory response, their bacterial adhesion, and their physical properties when used to close oral wounds.
METHODS
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences, and OVID) were searched to retrieve relevant studies from January 1, 2000, to January 31, 2020.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of the 269 articles, only 13 studies were selected as they were relevant and met the systematic review's protocol. These studies showed that almost all suture materials studies (catgut, polyglycolic acid [PGA] sutures, nylon, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and silk sutures) caused bacterial adherence and tissue reaction. In nylon and chromic catgut, the number of bacteria accumulated was lowest. Silk and nylon were found to be more impacted than catgut and PGA in terms of physical characteristics such as tensile strength. PGA, on the other hand, was said to be the most susceptible to knot unwinding.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Following an oral surgical operation, all sutures revealed varied degrees of irritation and microbial accumulation. Nonresorbable monofilament synthetic sutures, however, exhibited less tissue response and less microbial accumulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35305815
pii: S0020-6539(22)00030-2
doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.02.005
pmc: PMC9275112
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Nylons
0
Polyglycolic Acid
26009-03-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
278-287Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest None disclosed.
Références
ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:762095
pubmed: 22645688
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Jan 01;21(1):e95-102
pubmed: 26615503
Iran Endod J. 2010 Spring;5(2):69-73
pubmed: 23130030
J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):618-24
pubmed: 19335082
Int J Dent. 2019 Oct 09;2019:7419708
pubmed: 31687026
Polymers (Basel). 2016 Apr 20;8(4):
pubmed: 30979247
J Int Oral Health. 2013 Oct;5(5):95-100
pubmed: 24324311
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2009 May-Jun;13(3):217-26
pubmed: 19673173
J Periodontol. 2005 Jan;76(1):34-42
pubmed: 15830635
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;8(5):391-395
pubmed: 30430064
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007 Dec;18(12):2363-9
pubmed: 17569012
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Jul 01;13(4):521-7
pubmed: 23151703
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Mar;105(3):e15-8
pubmed: 18280940
Materials (Basel). 2019 Sep 04;12(18):
pubmed: 31487852
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Feb;23(2):559-565
pubmed: 29717362