A clinical study on the influence of suturing material on oral wound healing

Dragan Gazivoda; Dejan Pelemiš; Goran Vujašković

doi:10.2298/5835

Dragan Gazivoda Clinic of Oral Surgery, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy, University of Defence, Belgrade, Serbia
Dejan Pelemiš Clinic of Oral Surgery, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia
Goran Vujašković Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/5835

Keywords: oral surgical procedures, sutures, treatment outcome,

Abstract

Background/Aim. Suture materials play an important role in healing, enabling reconstruction and reassembly of tissue separated by the surgical procedure or trauma, and at the same time facilitating and promoting healing and hemostasis. Suture materials are used daily in oral surgery, and are considered to be substances most commonly implanted in human body. The aim of this clinical study was to examine the speed of wound healing and complications incidence, after the use of three different absorbable synthetic suture materials in oral surgery (catgut, Dexon and Vicryl rapide), and to ascertain which one is the most suitable for oral surgery. Methods. The study was conducted on 96 patients undergoing root resection or surgical extraction of third molars. Each of the suture materials (catgut, Dexon and Vicryl rapide) was used for 8 root resections and 8 surgical third molar extractions in the maxilla, as well as in the mandible (a total of 32 surgical interventions for each suture material). Results. The faster wound healing was obtained with Vicryl rapide compared to other two suturing material tested. There was no significant difference regarding the presence of local reaction in all the three groups of patients on the 21st postoperative day. Conclusion. The results of our clinical study point out that Vycril-rapid contributes more than catgut or Dexon to faster healing of human wounds, with fewer incidences of wound dehiscence and milder local reactions

References

Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, Amasio M, Gallesio C, Allizond V, et al. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65(8): 1503−7.

Kostić I. Impact of suture material and suture techniques on healing of tracheal anastomoses. Niš: Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš; 1989. (Serbian)

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(3): 15−8.

Çapanoğlu D. Sutures, 1999-2000, Spring Term. [cited 2007. September 9]. Available from: http//www.biometu.edu.tr/biomed/sutures.htm

O'Neal RB, Alleyn CD. Suture materials and techniques. Curr Opin Periodontol 1997; 4: 89−95.

Stone IK, von Fraunhofer JA, Masterson BJ. A comparative study of suture materials: chromic gut and chromic gut treated with glycerin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151(8): 1087−93.

Stone IK. Suture materials. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1988; 31(3): 712−7.

Racey GL, Wallace WR, Cavalaris CJ, Marquard JV. Comparison of a polyglycolic-polylactic acid suture toblack silk and plain catgut in human oral tissues. J Oral Surg 1978; 36(10): 776−70.

Guyuron B, Vaughan C. A comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials for skin repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89(2): 234−6.

Peterson L, Ellis E, Hupp JR, Tucker MR. Contemporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 3rd ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year-Book; 1998.

Gazivoda D, Pelemiš D, Vujašković G. Influence of the suturing material on a wound healing - experimental study in dogs. Vojnosanit Pregl 2015; 72(5): 397–404.

Aderriotis D, Sàndor GK. Outcomes of irradiated polyglactin 910 Vicryl Rapide fast-absorbing suture in oral and scalp wounds. J Can Dent Assoc 1999; 65(6): 345−7.

Mirković S. Impact of suture material on wound healing fol-lowing mucoperiosteal incision. Novi Sad: Faculty of Dentis-try, University of Novi Sad; 2000. (Serbian)

Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc 1964; 68: 7−13.

Loë H. The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Reten-tion Index Systems. J Periodontol 1967; 38: 610−6.

Nary FH, Matsumoto MA, Batista AC, Lopes LC, de Góes FC, Consolaro A. Comparative study of tissue response to poly-glecaprone 25, polyglactin 910 and polytetrafluorethylene su-ture materials in rats. Braz Dent J 2002; 13(2): 86−91.

Filho NH, Okamoto T, Padovan LE. Estudo comparativo da re-sposta tecidual frente a fios de sutura de catgut e poliglecaprone 25 em subcutaneo de ratos. Salusvita 1996; 15(1): 127−42.

Duprez K, Bilweis J, Duprez A, Merle M. Experimental and clini-cal study of fast absorption cutaneous suture material. Ann Chir Main 1988; 7(1): 91−6.

Shaw RJ, Negus TW, Mellor TK. A prospective clinical evalua-tion of the longevity of resorbable sutures in oral mucosa. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996; 34(3): 252−4.

Certosimo FJ, Nicoll BK, Nelson RR, Wolfgang M. Wound healing and repair: a review of the art and science. Gen Dent 1998;46(4):362-9.

Wallace WR, Maxwel GR, Cavalaris CJ. Comparison of poly-glicolic acid to black silk, chromic, and plain catgut in human oral tissues. J Oral Surgery 1970; 28(10): 739−16.