Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Tissue reactions to suture materials in the oral mucosa of beagle dogs

  • Kim, Jae-Seok (Luden Dental Clinic) ;
  • Shin, Seung-Il (Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Herr, Yeek (Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Joon-Bong (Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kwon, Young-Hyuk (Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Chung, Jong-Hyuk (Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2011.05.29
  • Accepted : 2011.06.30
  • Published : 2011.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the inflammatory responses of three widely used suture materials in the keratinized gingiva and buccal mucosa of beagle dogs. Methods: Silk, polyglycolic acid, and nylon sutures were placed within the mandibular keratinized gingiva and maxillary buccal mucosa of four male beagle dogs. Biopsies were taken 3, 7, and 14 days after suturing. Specimens were prepared with hematoxylineosin stain for evaluation under a light microscope. Results: The suture materials placed in the oral mucosa elicited more inflammatory reactions than did those placed in the keratinized gingiva. The multifilament suture materials caused more inflammatory tissue reactions than did the monofilament suture materials in the oral mucosa. Conclusions: If oral hygiene is well maintained and suture materials are placed in the keratinized gingiva, silk, nylon, and polyglycolic acid are considered to be proper suture materials for oral surgery. However, it is advisable to use monofilament suture materials if the suture site is within the oral mucosa.

Keywords

References

  1. Nobuto T, Imai H, Suwa F, Kono T, Suga H, Jyoshi K, et al. Microvascular response in the periodontal ligament following mucoperiosteal flap surgery. J Periodontol 2003;74: 521-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.4.521
  2. Swanson NA, Tromovitch TA. Suture materials, 1980s: properties, uses, and abuses. Int J Dermatol 1982;21:373-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4362.1982.tb03154.x
  3. Cohen ES. Atlas of cosmetic and reconstructive periodontal surgery. 3rd ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2007.
  4. Grigg TR, Liewehr FR, Patton WR, Buxton TB, McPherson JC. Effect of the wicking behavior of multifilament sutures. J Endod 2004;30:649-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.DON.0000121617.67923.05
  5. Ivanoff CJ, Widmark G. Nonresorbable versus resorbable sutures in oral implant surgery: a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:57-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x
  6. Craig PH, Williams JA, Davis KW, Magoun AD, Levy AJ, Bogdansky S, et al. A biologic comparison of polyglactin 910 and polyglycolic acid synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975;141:1-10.
  7. Silverstein LH. Principles of dental suturing: the complete guide to surgical closure. New Jersey: Montage Media Co.; 1999.
  8. Selvig KA, Biagiotti GR, Leknes KN, Wikesjo UM. Oral tissue reactions to suture materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:474-87.
  9. Sanz L, Smith S. Mechanisms of wound healing, suture material, and wound closure, strategies in gynecologic surgery. New York: Springer; 1986.
  10. Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, Koray M, Ersev H, Issever H, et al. Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tissues of rats. Oral Dis 2003;9:284-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1601-0825.2003.00954.x
  11. Leknes KN, Røynstrand IT, Selvig KA. Human gingival tissue reactions to silk and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. J Periodontol 2005;76:34-42. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.1.34
  12. Lilly GE, Armstrong JH, Salem JE, Cutcher JL. Reaction of oral tissues to suture materials. II. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968;26:592-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(68)90343-5
  13. Rothenburger S, Spangler D, Bhende S, Burkley D. In vitro antimicrobial evaluation of Coated VICRYL* Plus Antibacterial Suture (coated polyglactin 910 with triclosan) using zone of inhibition assays. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2002;3 Suppl 1:S79-87. https://doi.org/10.1089/10962960260496361
  14. Gabrielli F, Potenza C, Puddu P, Sera F, Masini C, Abeni D. Suture materials and other factors associated with tissue reactivity, infection, and wound dehiscence among plastic surgery outpatients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:38-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200101000-00007
  15. Castelli WA, Nasjleti CF, Diaz-Perez R, Caffesse RG. Cheek mucosa response to silk, cotton, and nylon suture materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1978;45:186-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(78)90084-1
  16. Racey GL, Wallace WR, Cavalaris CJ, Marguard JV. Comparison of a polyglycolic-polylactic acid suture to black silk and plain catgut in human oral tissues. J Oral Surg 1978;36:766-70.
  17. Blomstedt B, Osterberg B, Bergstrand A. Suture material and bacterial transport. An experimental study. Acta Chir Scand 1977;143:71-3.
  18. King RC, Crawford JJ, Small EW. Bacteremia following intraoral suture removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;65:23-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(88)90185-5
  19. Blumenthal NM. A clinical comparison of collagen membranes with e-PTFE membranes in the treatment of human mandibular buccal class II furcation defects. J Periodontol 1993;64:925-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1993.64.10.925
  20. Cardaropoli G, Araújo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:809-18. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00366.x
  21. Romanos GE, Schröter-Kermani C, Weingart D, Strub JR. Health human periodontal versus peri-implant gingival tissues: an immunohistochemical differentiation of the extracellular matrix. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995; 10:750-8.
  22. Lilly GE. Reaction of oral tissues to suture materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1968;26:128-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(68)90232-6
  23. 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:e15-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.09.019
  24. Gabel EA, Jimenez GP, Eaglstein WH, Kerdel FA, Falanga V. Performance comparison of nylon and an absorbable suture material (Polyglactin 910) in the closure of punch biopsy sites. Dermatol Surg 2000;26:750-2. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.00049.x
  25. Leknes KN, Selvig KA, Bøe OE, Wikesjö UM. Tissue reactions to sutures in the presence and absence of anti-infective therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:130-8.

Cited by

  1. Pre- and post-operative management of dental implant placement. Part 2: management of early-presenting complications vol.217, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.702
  2. Wound healing following surgical and regenerative periodontal therapy vol.68, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12057
  3. Tissue reactivity and suture handling characteristics of “jimat” against silk and chromic gut in cat thigh muscle: A comparative study vol.8, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.958-969
  4. Effects of different suture materials on tissue healing vol.50, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.79438
  5. Systematic Evaluation of Effect of Myrtle and Fenugreek on Initial Inflammatory Response of Lingual Muscles to Different Types of Suturing Material in Diabetic Rats vol.6, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.29252/3dj.6.3.61
  6. The Effect of Chlorhexidine and Listerine® Mouthwashes on the Tensile Strength of Selected Absorbable Sutures: An In Vitro Study vol.2018, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8531706
  7. Cadaveric Evaluation of Load to Failure in Canine Gingiva Apposed With Varied Suture Patterns Using Poliglecaprone 25 vol.38, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1177/08987564211010940