Procena mehaničkih svojstava tri najčešće korišćena šavna materijala za oralnu primenu u kliničkoj stomatologiji – in vitro studija
Sažetak
Uvod/Cilj. Izbor odgovarajućeg šavnog materijala je presudan korak za bezbedno zarastanje rane u oralnoj, maksilofacijalnoj i parodontalnoj hirurgiji. Sveobuhvatne studije koje bi upoređivale mehanička svojstva šavnih materijala koji se često koriste u oralnoj hirurgiji su malobrojne. Ova in vitro studija imala je za cilj da proceni efekat pljuvačke na čvrstoću, izduženje i krutost šavnog materijala koji se uobičajeno koristi tokom perioda od dve nedelje. Metode. Korišćena su tri šavna materijala debljine 4–0: svila (SL), poliglaktin 910 (PG) i polipropilen (PP). Za ispitivanje je korišćeno ukupno 120 uzoraka (po 40 od svakog materijala). Veštačka pljuvačka je bila pomešana sa humanim serumom u odnosu 1: 1 i održavana na pH od 7,4 do 8,1 kako bi se simuliralo okruženje u usnoj duplji. Svi uzorci su bili testirani pre potapanja u pljuvačku (bazalni nivo), kao i 3., 7. i 14. dana nakon potapanja. Za ispitivanje odabranih mehaničkih svojstava korišćena je univerzalna mašina za testiranje. Urađena je statistička analiza prikupljenih podataka. Rezultati. Prosečna vrednost čvrstoće pre potapanja u veštačku pljuvačku, kao i procenat izduženja bili su značajno viši kod PP materijala (p < 0,001), dok je krutost bila najviša kod uzoraka SL (p < 0,001). Međusobnim poređenjem ispitivanih materijala, ustanovljeno je da je PP u svim vremenskim tačkama imao maksimalnu čvrstoću vlakana u odnosu na PG i SL. Kada se poredilo procentualno izduženje, PP i PG su pokazali najviše vrednosti 7. (PP) i 14. dana (PP). Materijal PP je imao veće vrednosti krutosti u poređenju sa SL i PG 7. i 14. dana nakon potapanja u veštačku pljuvačku (p < 0,001). Poređenje vrednosti posmatranih mehaničkih svojstava unutar pojedinih vrsta šavnog materijala pokazalo je da je kod svih materijala postojala značajna razlika u tim parametrima 14. dana nakon potapanja u veštačku pljuvačku u odnosu na bazalne vrednosti (p < 0,001). Zaključak. Šavni materijal PP je najčvršći i ima najveću zateznu čvrstoću i svojstvo izduženja. Čini se da PP zadržava čvrstoću vlakana bolje od SL i PG na kraju 14. dana od potapanja u veštačku pljuvačku. Neophodne su kontrolisane kliničke studije da bi se ovaj nalaz potvrdio u uslovima in vivo.
Reference
Naleway SE, Lear W, Kruzic JJ, Maughan CB. Mechanical prop-erties of suture materials in general and cutaneous surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2015; 103(4): 735‒42.
Vasantha A, Satheesh K, Hoopes W, Lucaci P, Williams, K, Rapley J. Comparing suture strengths for clinical applications: a novel in vitro study. J Periodontol 2009; 80(4): 618‒24.
Burkhart SS, Wirth MA, Simonich M, Salem D, Lanctot D, Atha-nasiou K. Knot security in simple sliding knots and its relation-ship to rotator cuff repair: How secure must the knot be? Ar-throscopy 2000; 16(2): 202‒7.
Arce J, Palacios A, Alvitez-Temoche D, Mendoza-Azpur G, Romero-Tapia P, Mayta-Tovalino F. Tensile Strength of Novel Nonab-sorbable PTFE (Teflon(R) versus Other Suture Materials: An In Vitro Study. Int J Dent 2019; 2019: 7419708.
Hiatt WH, Stallard RE, Butler E, Badgett B. Repair following mucoperiosteal flap surgery with full gingival retention. J Per-iodontol 1968; 39(1): 11‒6.
Burkhardt R, Lang NP. Coverage of localized gingival recessions: comparison of micro- and macrosurgical techniques. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(3): 287‒93.
Chu CC. Mechanical-properties of suture materials–An important characterization. Ann Surg 1981; 193(3): 365‒71.
von Fraunhofer JA, Storey RJ, Masterson BJ. Tensile properties of suture materials. Biomaterials 1988; 9(4): 324‒7.
Racey G, Wallace W, Cavalaris C, Marguard J. Comparison of a polyglycolic-polylactic acid suture to black silk and plain cat-gut in human oral tissues. J Oral Surg.1978; 36(10): 766‒70.
Ferguson RE Jr, Schuler K, Thornton BP, Vasconez HC, Rinker B. The effect of saliva and oral intake on the tensile properties of sutures: an experimental study. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 58(3): 268‒72.
Alsarhan M, Alnofaie H, Ateeq R, Almahdy A. The Effect of Chlorhexidine and Listerine® Mouthwashes on the Tensile Strength of Selected Absorbable Sutures: An In Vitro Study. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 8531706.
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.
Gal JY, Fovet Y, Adib-Yadzi M. About a synthetic saliva for in vitro studies. Talanta 2001; 53(6): 1103‒15.
Vasanthan A, Satheesh K, Hoopes W, Lucaci P, Williams K, Rapley J. Comparing suture strengths for clinical applications: a novel in vitro study. J Periodontol 2009; 80(4): 618‒24.
Lai SY, Becker DG, Edlich RF. Sutures and needles. 2009. Available from: http: www.eMedicine.com [accessed 2010 Oc-tober].
Pillai C, Sharma CP. Review paper: absorbable polymeric sur-gical sutures. Chemistry, production, properties, biodegrada-bility, and performance. J Biomater Appl 2010; 25: 291‒366.
von Fraunhofer JA, Storey RS, Stone IK, Masterson BJ. Tensile strength of suture materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1985; 19(5): 595‒600.
Edlich RF, Panek PH, Rodeheaver GT, Turnbull VG, Kurtz LD, Edgerton MT. Physical and chemical configuration of sutures in the development of surgical infection. Ann Surg 1973; 177(6): 679–688.
Moy R L, Lee A, Zalka A. Commonly used suture materials in skin surgery. Am Fam Physician 1991; 44(6): 2123‒8.
Ketchum LD. Suture materials and suture techniques used in tendon repair. Hand Clin 1985; 1(1): 43‒53.
Karabulut R, Sonmez K, Turkyilmaz Z, Bagbanci B, Basaklar AC, Kale N. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation of tensile strength and durability of seven suture materials in various pH and dif-ferent conditions: an experimental study in rats. Indian. J Surg 2010; 72(5): 386‒90.
McCaul LK, Bagg J, Jenkins WM. Rate of loss of irradiated pol-yglactin 910 (vicryl rapide) from the mouth: A prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38(4): 328‒30.
Siervo S. Suturing Techniques in Oral Surgery. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Quintessence Publication Co. 2008.
Chu CC, and Moncrief G. An in vitro evaluation of the stability of mechanical properties of surgical suture materials in various pH conditions. Ann Surg 1983; 198(2): 223‒8.
Mohammed A, Hourya A, Rawan A, Ahmed A. The Effect of Chlorhexidine and Listerine® Mouthwashes on the Tensile Strength of Selected Absorbable Sutures: An In Vitro Study. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 8531706.
Alshehri MA, Baskaradoss JK, Geevarghese A, Ramakrishnaiah R, Tatakis DN. Effects of myrrh on the strength of suture mate-rials: an in vitro study. Dent Mater J 2015; 34(2): 148–153.
Arcuri C, Cecchetti F, Dri M, Muzzi F, Bartuli FN. Suture in oral surgery. A comparative study. Minerva Stomatol 2006; 55(1‒2): 17‒31.
Debus ES, Geiger D, Sailer M, Ederer J, Thiede A. Physical, bio-logical and handling characteristics of surgical suture material: a comparison of four different multifilament absorbable su-tures. Eur Surg Res 1997; 29(1): 52‒61.
Rashid RM, Sartori M, White LE, Villa MT, Yoo SS, Alam M. Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143(7): 869‒72.
Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, Koray M, Ersev H, Issever H, et al. Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tis-sues of rats. Oral Dis 2003; 9(6): 284‒6.
Hochberg J, Meyer KM, Marion MD. Suture choice and other methods of skin closure. Surg Clin North Am 2009; 89(3): 627‒41.
Altman GH, Diaz F, Jakuba C, Calabro T, Horan RL, Chen J, et al. Silk-based biomaterials. Biomaterials 2003; 24(3): 401‒16.