Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorYaman, D.
dc.contributor.authorPaksoy, T.
dc.contributor.authorUstaoğlu, G.
dc.contributor.authorDemirci, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-12T16:56:39Z
dc.date.available2021-12-12T16:56:39Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn0278-2391
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.09.014
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11857/2622
dc.description.abstractPurpose: This study aimed to compare the effects of 10 different suture materials commonly used in dentoalveolar surgery on wound healing, their postoperative microbial colonization, and related clinical parameters. Methods: A total of 172 suture samples from patients who had undergone extraction of impacted third molars were included in the study. The suture materials studied were poly-glycolide-colactide, fast absorbable poly-glycolide-colactide, poly-glycolic acid-cocaprolactone, polydioxanone, silk, polypropylene, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyamide, polyester, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The microbial colonization in all sutures and clinical parameters were evaluated after 1 week. Results: Multifilament sutures had higher bacterial colonization compared with monofilament sutures (P <.001). No dental plaque accumulation was observed in any samples of polypropylene sutures. Polydioxanone, PTFE, and poly-glycolic acid-cocaprolactone sutures exhibited less postoperative slack compared with all other sutures after 1 week. Patients with silk, polyvinylidene difluoride, and PTFE sutures had less suture-related discomfort. According to the Landry index score, monofilament sutures demonstrated superior wound healing to multifilament sutures (P =.019). In addition, nonabsorbable sutures showed significantly better wound epithelization than absorbable sutures (P ?.001). Conclusions: Bacterial colonization and tissue reactions due to the surface properties of the suture affected the wound healing after dentoalveolar surgery. Multifilament sutures should not be applied for prolonged periods because of their tendency for microbial colonization. The tissue reaction to the absorbable suture materials may adversely affect wound healing. © 2021 The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeonsen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank Boz T?bbi A.? for their support. In addition, we thank Kalayc?o?lu O. and Ba?ol M. (Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Bolu, Turkey) for their great efforts in the statistical analysis.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherW.B. Saundersen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeryen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joms.2021.09.014
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keywords]en_US
dc.titleEvaluation of Bacterial Colonization and Clinical Properties of Different Suture Materials in Dentoalveoler Surgeryen_US
dc.typearticle
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Temel Tıp Bilimleri, Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorscopusid57216756454
dc.authorscopusid57216226536
dc.authorscopusid56652230900
dc.authorscopusid57320279800
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85118352773en_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster