Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Background: Many factors play a role when selecting an appropriate suture for optimal soft tissue healing in oral surgery. Moreover, the oral cavity has its specific challenges: it is an aqueous environment in which biofilm formation takes place on all surfaces. Therefore, oral surgery has specific demands for suture materials.
Aim: The primary objective of this study was to compare the bacterial load on different suture materials. The secondary objective was to determine the impact of suture material on decubitus.
Material & methods: This prospective experimental study with a 'split-mouth' design enrolled 36 patients requiring oral surgery. Five different suture materials were compared regarding their microbiological load and decubitus at the suture removal. Bacterial accumulation on the same 5 suture materials was also tested in an in vitro biofilm model.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silk 4.0 | Active Comparator | Silk suture |
|
| PG910 4.0 | Active Comparator | Vicryl Rapid suture |
|
| PP 4.0 | Experimental | Non-absorbable polypropylene monofilament |
|
| Silk 5.0 | Active Comparator | Silk suture |
|
| PG910 5.0 | Active Comparator | Vicryl suture |
|
| PP 5.0 | Experimental | Non-absorbable polypropylene monofilament |
|
| APG 5.0 |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silk 4.0 | Device | Silk suture 4.0 |
| |
| PG 910 4.0 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Accumulation of soft deposits | Accumulation of soft deposits on each suture material was assessed visually as being present or absent before removing the knots. | 7 to 14 days |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Area of inflammation | Clinical photographs were taken, calibrated with a ruler of 0.5 mm accuracy as is illustrated in Figure 2, before and after suture removal in both parts of the clinical study. Subsequently, the area of inflammation surrounding the sutures was measured by two separate examiners using the image-analysis program, Image J® (NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA). | 7 to 14 days |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Marc Quirynen | KU Leuven | Study Director |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Antibacterial Vicryl suture |
|
| ePTFE 5.0 | Experimental | expanded polytetrafluoroethylene |
|
| Device |
PG 910 4.0 |
|
| PP 4.0 | Device | PP 4.0 |
|
| Silk 5.0 | Device | Silk 5.0 |
|
| PG910 5.0 | Device | PG910 5.0 |
|
| PP 5.0 | Device | PP 5.0 |
|
| APG 5.0 | Device | APG 5.0 |
|
| ePTFE 5.0 | Device | ePTFE 5.0 |
|
| Microbial deposits on the sutures | The composition of the microbial deposits on the suture materials was examined with qPCR. | 7 to 14 days |