A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology

Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture. Material and methods: Ten edentulous or partially edentulous patients were surgically treated for implant installation...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2011-03, Vol.22 (3), p.282-288
Main Authors: Pons-Vicente, Olivia, López-Jiménez, Lidia, Sánchez-Garcés, Ma Angels, Sala-Pérez, Sergi, Gay-Escoda, Cosme
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use
Bacteria - classification
bacterial adherence
Bacterial Adhesion - physiology
Bacterial Load
bacterial plaque
Bacteriological Techniques
Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use
contamination
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - instrumentation
Dental Implants
Dental Plaque - microbiology
Dental restorative materials
Dentistry
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Jaw, Edentulous - surgery
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially - surgery
Male
Middle Aged
Mouthwashes - therapeutic use
multi-filament
Patient Satisfaction
Polyesters - chemistry
Polytetrafluoroethylene - chemistry
Prospective Studies
silk
Silk - chemistry
suture material
Suture Techniques
Sutures - microbiology
Toothbrushing - instrumentation
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture. Material and methods: Ten edentulous or partially edentulous patients were surgically treated for implant installation. Each side was sutured with either, randomly selected one or the other suture material. Seven days postsurgically, the sutures were removed and three knots per patient and side were collected for microbiological testing. Additionally, a piece of each suture thread was analysed before clinical use to test its susceptibility for bacterial adherence. To evaluate the patient's subjective opinion, a questionnaire based on Visual Analogue Scale had to be filled out by all included patients 1 week after the intervention. Results: The results showed a more pronounced plaque accumulation for silk sutures but there was not a statistical difference. The intraoperative handling of the silk sutures was less comfortable and the patient comfort was worse than Teflon‐coated polyester suture. Conclusion: The bacterial adherence on Teflon‐coated polyester suture was slightly inferior than silk suture although it did not show the expected differences. To cite this article: 
Pons‐Vicente O, López‐Jiménez L, Sánchez‐Garcés Ma A, Sala‐Pérez S, Gay‐Escoda C.
A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 282–288.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01993.x
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x