Influence of Suture Type on Implant Wound Healing and Bacterial Adherence

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Ahmed H. Al-Ani, Priyadharshini Sekar, Zaid G. Hamdoon, Waad kheder, Natheer H. Al-Rawi
{"title":"Influence of Suture Type on Implant Wound Healing and Bacterial Adherence","authors":"Ahmed H. Al-Ani,&nbsp;Priyadharshini Sekar,&nbsp;Zaid G. Hamdoon,&nbsp;Waad kheder,&nbsp;Natheer H. Al-Rawi","doi":"10.1002/jbm.b.35679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Suture selection influences wound healing, patient comfort, and infection risk in implant surgery. Although monofilament sutures are commonly recommended for implant surgery, the comparative clinical performance of different types of monofilament sutures remains underexplored. This study compared the clinical and microbiological performance of polyamide and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sutures. A split-mouth design was used in 19 patients (38 implant sites) to compare wound healing, patient comfort, and bacterial adherence associated with polyamide and PTFE sutures. Wound healing was assessed using the early wound healing score (EHS, 0–10 scale), patient comfort via a visual analog scale (VAS, 1–10), and bacterial colonization using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of seven oral pathogens. Knot retention was recorded on days 0 and 7. Mean early wound healing scores were similar between PTFE (6.47 ± 0.52) and polyamide (6.63 ± 0.63) (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding surrounding tissue irritation (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). However, knot stability decreased significantly for both materials, with polyamide showing higher knot loss (44.4% vs. 22.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.008). A significant number of <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> were detected in PTFE compared to polyamide, which demonstrated enhanced reepithelialization and minimal tissue reaction. Both suture types achieved satisfactory healing and patient comfort, but their distinct microbial adhesion patterns may influence long-term peri-implant outcomes. Polyamide demonstrated lower <i>P. gingivalis</i> colonization and better re-epithelialization, suggesting potential clinical advantages.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15269,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials","volume":"113 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm.b.35679","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Suture selection influences wound healing, patient comfort, and infection risk in implant surgery. Although monofilament sutures are commonly recommended for implant surgery, the comparative clinical performance of different types of monofilament sutures remains underexplored. This study compared the clinical and microbiological performance of polyamide and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sutures. A split-mouth design was used in 19 patients (38 implant sites) to compare wound healing, patient comfort, and bacterial adherence associated with polyamide and PTFE sutures. Wound healing was assessed using the early wound healing score (EHS, 0–10 scale), patient comfort via a visual analog scale (VAS, 1–10), and bacterial colonization using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of seven oral pathogens. Knot retention was recorded on days 0 and 7. Mean early wound healing scores were similar between PTFE (6.47 ± 0.52) and polyamide (6.63 ± 0.63) (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding surrounding tissue irritation (p > 0.05). However, knot stability decreased significantly for both materials, with polyamide showing higher knot loss (44.4% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.008). A significant number of Porphyromonas gingivalis were detected in PTFE compared to polyamide, which demonstrated enhanced reepithelialization and minimal tissue reaction. Both suture types achieved satisfactory healing and patient comfort, but their distinct microbial adhesion patterns may influence long-term peri-implant outcomes. Polyamide demonstrated lower P. gingivalis colonization and better re-epithelialization, suggesting potential clinical advantages.

缝合方式对种植体创面愈合及细菌粘附的影响。
在种植体手术中,缝线选择影响伤口愈合、患者舒适度和感染风险。虽然单丝缝线通常被推荐用于种植体手术,但不同类型的单丝缝线的比较临床性能仍未得到充分的研究。本研究比较了聚酰胺和聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)缝线的临床和微生物学性能。19例患者(38个植入部位)采用裂口设计,比较聚酰胺和聚四氟乙烯缝线的伤口愈合、患者舒适度和细菌粘附性。采用早期伤口愈合评分(EHS, 0-10分)评估伤口愈合,采用视觉模拟评分(VAS, 1-10分)评估患者舒适度,采用实时定量PCR (qPCR)分析7种口腔病原体的细菌定植。在第0天和第7天记录结潴留。PTFE(6.47±0.52)与聚酰胺(6.63±0.63)的早期创面愈合评分相近(p < 0.05)。两组患者周围组织受刺激程度差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。然而,两种材料的结稳定性都显著下降,聚酰胺显示更高的结损失(44.4%对22.2%,p = 0.008)。与聚酰胺相比,在聚四氟乙烯中检测到大量的牙龈卟啉单胞菌,表现出增强的再上皮化和最小的组织反应。两种缝线类型均获得满意的愈合和患者舒适度,但其不同的微生物粘附模式可能影响种植体周围的长期结果。聚酰胺显示出较低的牙龈假单胞菌定植和更好的再上皮化,提示潜在的临床优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
199
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Biomedical Materials Research – Part B: Applied Biomaterials is a highly interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal serving the needs of biomaterials professionals who design, develop, produce and apply biomaterials and medical devices. It has the common focus of biomaterials applied to the human body and covers all disciplines where medical devices are used. Papers are published on biomaterials related to medical device development and manufacture, degradation in the body, nano- and biomimetic- biomaterials interactions, mechanics of biomaterials, implant retrieval and analysis, tissue-biomaterial surface interactions, wound healing, infection, drug delivery, standards and regulation of devices, animal and pre-clinical studies of biomaterials and medical devices, and tissue-biopolymer-material combination products. Manuscripts are published in one of six formats: • original research reports • short research and development reports • scientific reviews • current concepts articles • special reports • editorials Journal of Biomedical Materials Research – Part B: Applied Biomaterials is an official journal of the Society for Biomaterials, Japanese Society for Biomaterials, the Australasian Society for Biomaterials, and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. Manuscripts from all countries are invited but must be in English. Authors are not required to be members of the affiliated Societies, but members of these societies are encouraged to submit their work to the journal for consideration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书