SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Current Research in Dental Sciences / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3

MICROBIOLOGIC COMPARISON OF SILK, POLYESTER [POLY(ETHYLENETEREPHTHALATE)], POLYGLYCOLIC ACID, AND POLY(GLYCOLIDE-CO-LACTIDE) SUTURE MATERIALS IN ORAL SURGERY

ORAL CERRAHİ UYGULANAN HASTALARDA İPEK, POLYESTER [POLY (ETHYLENETEREPHTHALATE)], POLYGLYCOLIC ACID VE POLY(GLYCOLIDE-COLACTIDE) SÜTÜR MATERYALLERİNİN MİKROBİYOLOJİK AÇIDAN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Ertan Yalçın0000-0003-2785-7576
Hakan Uslu0000-0003-1478-7441
Ertunç Dayı0000-0001-7201-2025
Pages
440–447
Publication Date
2019-07-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

And also, since the colonization of pathogenic microorganisms could turn the sutures into a potential oral pathogen reservoir, sutures should be removed as soon as possible.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the microbiological colonization on different intraoral suture materials used in patients, undergone oral surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Suture materials were applied to 60 patients during dentoalveolar surgical interventions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:And also, since the colonization of pathogenic microorganisms could turn the sutures into a potential oral pathogen reservoir, sutures should be removed as soon as possible.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sütür materyalleri · mikrobiyolojik türler · oral cerrahi

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the microbiological colonization on different intraoral suture materials used in patients, undergone oral surgery. Material and Methods: Suture materials were applied to 60 patients during dentoalveolar surgical interventions. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups of 15. Four different types of suture materials were introduced into the patients after surgical removal of their impacted lower third molars. In the postoperative seventh day, suture materials were removed. After these sutures were washed in sterile saline solution containing tubes, we performed various microbiological isolation and differentiation techniques. Results: In microbiological examination, 13 aerobic species, 7 anaerobic species, 1 yeast species, and 1 mold species were isolated from the non-absorbable suture materials. Eight aerobic strains, 9 anaerobic strains, and additionally, 1 yeast and 2 mold strains were isolated from the absorbable suture materials. Conclusion: In light of the data obtained, we believe that polyglycolic acid based suture materials might be preferred in oral surgery. However, this choice should be made by considering the other features of the suture materials. And also, since the colonization of pathogenic microorganisms could turn the sutures into a potential oral pathogen reservoir, sutures should be removed as soon as possible.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı oral cerrahi uygulanmış hastalarda kullanılan farklı sütür materyallerinde meydana gelen mikrobiyolojik kolonizasyonların karşılaştırılmasıdır. Bireyler ve Yöntem: Sütür materyalleri dentoalveolar cerrahi yapılan toplam 60 hastaya uygulandı. Hastalar randomize olarak herbiri 15 hastadan oluşan 4 gruba bölündü. Gömülü alt yirmi yaş dişi operasyonu yapılan bu hastalara sütür materyalleri intraoral olarak uygulandı. Postoperatif 7. gün sütürler alındı. Alınan sütürler steril salin solüsyonu ihtiva eden tüplerde yıkandıktan sonra mikrobiyolojik izolasyon ve diferensiasyon teknikleri gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Mikrobiyolojik inceleme sonucu olarak; emilemeyen sütürlerde; 13 aerob ve 7 anaerob bakteri türüne ek olarak 1 maya ve 1 küf mantarı türü, emilebilen sütürlerde ise; 8 aerob ve 9 anaerob bakteri türüne ek olarak 1 maya ve 2 küf mantarı türü izole edildi. Sonuç: Elde edilen verilerin ışığında çalışmamızda kullanılan Sentesorb® sütür materyalinin oral cerrahide tercih edilebileceğini düşünmekteyiz. Ancak bu seçim sütür materyallerinin diğer özellikleri de göz önüne alınarak yapılmalıdır. Sütürlere kolonize olabilen patojen mikroorganizmalar yara yerinde bulunan bu sütürleri potansiyel patojen mikroorganizma rezervuarları haline getirdikleri için sütürler mümkün olan en kısa sürede alınmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yalçın, E., Uslu, H., Dayı, E. (2019). MICROBIOLOGIC COMPARISON OF SILK, POLYESTER [POLY(ETHYLENETEREPHTHALATE)], POLYGLYCOLIC ACID, AND POLY(GLYCOLIDE-CO-LACTIDE) SUTURE MATERIALS IN ORAL SURGERY. Current Research in Dental Sciences, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3, 440–447. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.566794

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Yu GV, Cavaliere R. Suture material, properties and uses. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1983; 73: 57–64.
  2. Parirokh M, Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Stowe S, Kakoei S. A scanning electron microscope study of plaque accumulation on silk and PVDF suture materials in oral mucosa. Int Endod J. 2004; 37: 776–781.
  3. Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, Koray M, Ersev H, Issever H, Dulger O, Soley S. Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tissues of rats. Oral Dis 2003; 9: 284-286.
  4. Shaw RJ, Negus TW, Mellor TK. A prospective clinical evaluation of longevity of resorbable sutures in oral mucosa. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34: 252-254.
  5. Bayer S, Demirtas N, Kazancıoglu HO. Suture materials in maxillofacial surgery: A literature review. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2015; Suppl 11; 105-113.
  6. Selvig KA, Biagiotti GR, Leknes KN, Wikesjo UME (1998) Oral tissue reactions to suture materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1998; 18: 475–487.
  7. Greenwald D, Shumway S, Albear P, Gottlieb L. Mechanical comparison of 10 suture materials before and after in vivo incubation. J Surg Res 1994; 56: 372-377.
  8. Sortino F, Lombardo C, Sciacca A. Silk and polyglycolic acid in oral surgery: A comparative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105: e15-e18.
  9. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. Am J Surg 1984; 147: 197-204.
  10. Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, Amasio M, Angeretti A, Tullio V, Cuffini AM. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 1503-1507.
  11. Grigg TR, Liewer FR, Patton WR,Buxton TB, Mcpherson JC. Effect of the wicking behaviour of multifilament sutures. J Endod 2004; 30: 649-652.
  12. Otten JE, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Jahnke H, et al. Bacterial colonization on different suture materials-A potential risk for intraoral dentoalveolar surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 74: 627.
  13. Giray CB. Clinical and electron microscope comparison of silk sutures and n butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in human mucosa. Aust Dent J 1997; 42: 255-258.
  14. Lilly GE. Reaction of oral tissues to suture materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968; 26: 128-133.
  15. Lilly GE, Armstrong JH, Salem JE, Cutcher JL. Reaction of oral tissues to suture materials.II. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968; 26: 592-599.
  16. Durdley P, Bucknall TE. Assesment of sutures for use in colonic surgery: an experimental study. J R Soc Med 1984; 77: 472-477.
  17. Rothenburger S, Spangler D, Bhende S, Burkley D. In vitro antimicrobial evaluation of coated Vicryl plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 with triclosan) using zone inhibition assays. Surg Infect 2002; 3: 79-87.
  18. Brown AR, Papasian CJ, Shultz P, Theisen FC, Shultz RE. Bacteremia and intraoral suture removal: Can an antimicrobial rinse help? J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 1455-1461.
  19. King RC, Crawford BA, Small EW. Bacteremia following intraoral suture removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988; 65: 23-28.
  20. Giglio JA, Rowland RW, Dalton HP, Laskin DM. Suture removal-induced bacteremia: a possible endocarditis risk. J Am Dent Assoc 1992; 123: 65-70.
  21. Martin M. Is there a link between tooth brushing and infective endocarditis? Int Dent J 2003; 53: 187-189