Preference of Suture Specifications in a Selected Periodontal and Implant Surgeries in Turkey

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Various suture materials and needles are now available for use in the dental surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the preference of suture materials among Turkish dentists by a dental survey.

Materials and Methods The survey was prepared and sent electronically to Turkish dentists through e-mail and/or Facebook. Dentists were asked to report their graduation year from dental school and their specialty if they have one. In addition, the type periodontal/implant operations and the frequency of those operations applied by them were questioned. The participants were to indicate their suture preferences for these procedures in a multiple-choice questionnaire.

Results Fifty-seven regular dentists, 49 periodontists, 22 oral surgeons, and 8 other specialists completed a self-administered survey. The majority of clinicians worked in private practice (77.9%). Nonabsorbable sutures were the most preferred for all procedures except periodontal plastic surgery. In regenerative surgeries, monofilament, 5–0 diameter suture material on a reverse cutting, 3/8 circle needle was preferred. In addition, for mucogingival surgery, 5–0 diameter suture material on a reverse cutting and 3/8 circle needle was favored. For dental implants, 4–0 diameter suture material on a reverse cutting and 3/8 circle needle was preferred. Monofilament and braided sutures were selected almost equally for implant operations.

Conclusions In periodontal and implant surgeries, dentists highly preferred the use of nonabsorbable sutures. In addition, the shape and diameter of needle had an important role in the selection of suture material. The present study's results may serve as a guide for the future studies.

• References

• 1 Kamann WA, Grimm WD, Schmitz I, Müller KM. Die chirurgische Naht in der Zahnheilkunde. Parodontologie (Berl) 1997; 4: 295-310
  Google Scholar
• 2 Siervo S. Suturing Techniques in Oral Surgery. 1st ed.. Berlin, Germany: Quintessence Publication Co; 2008
  Google Scholar
• 3 Burkhardt R, Lang NP. Influence of suturing on wound healing. Periodontol 2000 2015; 68 (01) 270-281
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Meng MV. Reported failures of the polymer self-locking (Hem-o-lok) clip: review of data from the Food and Drug Administration. J Endourol 2006; 20 (12) 1054-1057
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Herod EL. Cyanoacrylates in dentistry: a review of the literature. J Can Dent Assoc 1990; 56 (04) 331-334
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Vargas G, Reger TB. An alternative to sutures. Plast Surg Nurs 2001; 21 (02) 83-85
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Muglali M, Ylmaz N, Inal S, Guvenc T. Immunohistochemical comparison of indermil with traditional suture materials in dental surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22 (05) 1875-1879
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kumar MS, Natta S, Shankar G, Reddy SH, Visalakshi D, Seshiah GV. Comparison between silk sutures and cyanoacrylate adhesive in human mucosa—a clinical and histological study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5 (05) 95-100
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Burkhardt R, Lang NP. Periodontal plastic microsurgery. In: Lang NP, Lindhe J. eds. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. Oxford, UK: Munksgaard, Blackwell; 2008: 1029-44
  Google Scholar
• 10 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 (06) 679-688
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Pons-Vicente O, López-Jiménez L, Sánchez-Garcés MA, Sala-Pérez S, Gay-Escoda C. A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22 (03) 282-288
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Leknes KN, Røynstrand IT, Selvig KA. Human gingival tissue reactions to silk and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. J Periodontol 2005; 76 (01) 34-42
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Thacker JG, Rodeheaver GT, Towler MA, Edlich RF. Surgical needle sharpness. Am J Surg 1989; 157 (03) 334-339
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Mathur A, Bains VK, Gupta V, Jhingran R, Singh GP. Evaluation of intrabony defects treated with platelet-rich fibrin or autogenous bone graft: a comparative analysis. Eur J Dent 2015; 9 (01) 100-108
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Agarwal SK, Jhingran R, Bains VK, Srivastava R, Madan R, Rizvi I. Patient-centered evaluation of microsurgical management of gingival recession using coronally advanced flap with platelet-rich fibrin or amnion membrane: a comparative analysis. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (01) 121-133
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Ravidà A. et al. Influence of suturing technique on marginal flap stability following coronally advanced flap: a cadaver study. Clin Oral Invest 2019; 23 (02) 1641-1651
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 McCaul LK, Bagg J, Jenkins WM. Rate of loss of irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide) from the mouth: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38 (04) 328-330
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Maksoud M, Koo S, Barouch K, Karimbux N. Popularity of suture materials among residents and faculty members of a postdoctoral periodontology program. J Investig Clin Dent 2014; 5 (01) 45-50
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Selvig KA, Biagiotti GR, Leknes KN, Wikesjö UM. Oral tissue reactions to suture materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998; 18 (05) 474-487
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Postlethwait RW, Willigan DA, Ulin AW. Human tissue reaction to sutures. Ann Surg 1975; 181 (02) 144-150
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Bridgens NK. A comparative study of surgical suture materials and closure techniques. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1983; 82 (09) Suppl 715-718
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 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 (04) 372-377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Irvin TT. Wound Healing – Principles and Practices. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1981
  Google Scholar
• 24 Lilly GE, Armstrong JH, Salem JE, Cutcher JL. Reaction of oral tissues to suture materials. II. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968; 26 (04) 592-599
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Setzen G, Williams III EF. Tissue response to suture materials implanted subcutaneously in a rabbit model. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (07) 1788-1795
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Asher R, Chacartchi T, Tandlich M, Shapira L, Polak D. Microbial accumulation on different suture materials following oral surgery: a randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (02) 559-565
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Burkhardt R, Preiss A, Joss A, Lang NP. Influence of suture tension to the tearing characteristics of the soft tissues: an in vitro experiment. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (03) 314-319
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Wachtel H, Schenk G, Böhm S, Weng D, Zuhr O, Hürzeler MB. Microsurgical access flap and enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30 (06) 496-504
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Nguyen TVN, Tattan M, Ravidà A, Wang HL. Efficacy of tunnel technique in the treatment of localized and multiple gingival recessions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2018; 89 (09) 1075-1090
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Soni A, Narula R, Kumar A, Parmar M, Sahore M, Chandel M. Comparing cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and conventional subcuticular skin sutures for maxillofacial incisions—a prospective randomized trial considering closure time, wound morbidity, and cosmetic outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 71 (12) 2152.e1-2152.e8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar