抗菌缝合线对口腔手术后微生物定植的控制效果如何?

Q3 Dentistry
Omer Waleed Majid
{"title":"抗菌缝合线对口腔手术后微生物定植的控制效果如何?","authors":"Omer Waleed Majid","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01069-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A literature search was conducted through PubMed and Scopus databases to identify articles published from January 2013 to May 2023, using appropriate search terms. There were no language restrictions. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies and key peer-reviewed journals in oral surgery were manually searched for further relevant studies.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Selection criteria targeted human clinical studies, including cohort studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, case reports, and case series that investigated the antimicrobial activity of antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro, ex vivo, or animal studies, as well as if they were non-research or pre-print articles. Two authors independently selected studies, resolving disagreements through discussion or a third expert reviewer.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data, including author, year, country, study design, sample size, population, intervention, control, surgery type, suture removal time, methodology, main results, and additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with input from a third reviewer. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 150 identified articles, 129 abstracts were reviewed after removing duplicates, and 10 full-text articles were screened, resulting in the inclusion of 5 studies published between 2014 and 2019. Three were RCTs, with one using a split-mouth design, involving 10 to 40 patients aged 18 to 60 years, primarily healthy. The sutures were mostly braided and coated with triclosan or chlorhexidine, while control groups used various non-coated sutures. Suture removal times ranged from 3 to 8 days. Postoperative rinses were advised in two studies, with one study not administering antibiotics and unclear antibiotic use in others. Three studies reported significantly reduced bacterial counts with antimicrobial-coated sutures compared to non-coated ones, while two studies found no significant differences. Triclosan-coated sutures generally showed greater antimicrobial activity, though results varied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery showed reduced bacterial retention compared to non-coated sutures. However, methodological variability, small sample sizes, and confounding factors limit the generalizability and reliability of these findings. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed for more definitive conclusions. While antibacterial-coated sutures show promise in reducing microbial colonization and potentially improving surgical outcomes, their cost-effectiveness relative to non-coated sutures should be evaluated in larger clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How well do antibacterial sutures control microbial colonization after oral surgery?\",\"authors\":\"Omer Waleed Majid\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01069-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A literature search was conducted through PubMed and Scopus databases to identify articles published from January 2013 to May 2023, using appropriate search terms. There were no language restrictions. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies and key peer-reviewed journals in oral surgery were manually searched for further relevant studies.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Selection criteria targeted human clinical studies, including cohort studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, case reports, and case series that investigated the antimicrobial activity of antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro, ex vivo, or animal studies, as well as if they were non-research or pre-print articles. Two authors independently selected studies, resolving disagreements through discussion or a third expert reviewer.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data, including author, year, country, study design, sample size, population, intervention, control, surgery type, suture removal time, methodology, main results, and additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with input from a third reviewer. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 150 identified articles, 129 abstracts were reviewed after removing duplicates, and 10 full-text articles were screened, resulting in the inclusion of 5 studies published between 2014 and 2019. Three were RCTs, with one using a split-mouth design, involving 10 to 40 patients aged 18 to 60 years, primarily healthy. The sutures were mostly braided and coated with triclosan or chlorhexidine, while control groups used various non-coated sutures. Suture removal times ranged from 3 to 8 days. Postoperative rinses were advised in two studies, with one study not administering antibiotics and unclear antibiotic use in others. Three studies reported significantly reduced bacterial counts with antimicrobial-coated sutures compared to non-coated ones, while two studies found no significant differences. Triclosan-coated sutures generally showed greater antimicrobial activity, though results varied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery showed reduced bacterial retention compared to non-coated sutures. However, methodological variability, small sample sizes, and confounding factors limit the generalizability and reliability of these findings. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed for more definitive conclusions. While antibacterial-coated sutures show promise in reducing microbial colonization and potentially improving surgical outcomes, their cost-effectiveness relative to non-coated sutures should be evaluated in larger clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01069-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01069-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据来源:通过 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库进行文献检索,使用适当的检索词找出 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 5 月期间发表的文章。没有语言限制。此外,还人工搜索了纳入研究的参考文献目录和口腔外科主要同行评审期刊,以进一步了解相关研究:选择标准针对人类临床研究,包括队列研究、随机临床试验 (RCT)、准实验研究、病例报告和病例系列,这些研究调查了抗菌涂层缝合线在口腔手术中的抗菌活性。体外、体外或动物实验研究,以及非研究或预印文章均被排除在外。两位作者独立选择研究,通过讨论或第三位专家审稿人解决分歧:两位审稿人独立提取数据,包括作者、年份、国家、研究设计、样本量、人群、干预、对照、手术类型、缝线拆除时间、方法、主要结果和其他信息。差异通过讨论或第三位审稿人的意见得以解决。本研究遵循了 PRISMA-ScR 的范围界定综述指南:在 150 篇已确定的文章中,删除重复文章后审查了 129 篇摘要,并筛选了 10 篇全文文章,最终纳入了 2014 年至 2019 年间发表的 5 项研究。其中三项为研究性临床试验,一项采用分口设计,涉及 10 至 40 名患者,年龄在 18 至 60 岁之间,主要为健康人。缝合线大多为编织缝合线,并涂有三氯生或洗必泰,而对照组则使用各种无涂层缝合线。缝线拆除时间从 3 天到 8 天不等。有两项研究建议术后冲洗,其中一项研究未使用抗生素,其他研究则未明确使用抗生素。有三项研究报告称,与无涂层的缝合线相比,涂有抗菌剂的缝合线的细菌数量明显减少,而有两项研究则未发现明显差异。三氯生涂层缝合线通常具有更强的抗菌活性,但结果不尽相同:结论:与无涂层缝合线相比,口腔手术中的抗菌涂层缝合线可减少细菌滞留。然而,方法上的差异、样本量小以及混杂因素限制了这些研究结果的普遍性和可靠性。要得出更明确的结论,还需要样本量更大的高质量 RCT 研究。虽然抗菌涂层缝合线有望减少微生物定植并改善手术效果,但其相对于无涂层缝合线的成本效益应在更大规模的临床试验中进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How well do antibacterial sutures control microbial colonization after oral surgery?

Data sources: A literature search was conducted through PubMed and Scopus databases to identify articles published from January 2013 to May 2023, using appropriate search terms. There were no language restrictions. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies and key peer-reviewed journals in oral surgery were manually searched for further relevant studies.

Study selection: Selection criteria targeted human clinical studies, including cohort studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, case reports, and case series that investigated the antimicrobial activity of antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro, ex vivo, or animal studies, as well as if they were non-research or pre-print articles. Two authors independently selected studies, resolving disagreements through discussion or a third expert reviewer.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data, including author, year, country, study design, sample size, population, intervention, control, surgery type, suture removal time, methodology, main results, and additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with input from a third reviewer. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews.

Results: Out of 150 identified articles, 129 abstracts were reviewed after removing duplicates, and 10 full-text articles were screened, resulting in the inclusion of 5 studies published between 2014 and 2019. Three were RCTs, with one using a split-mouth design, involving 10 to 40 patients aged 18 to 60 years, primarily healthy. The sutures were mostly braided and coated with triclosan or chlorhexidine, while control groups used various non-coated sutures. Suture removal times ranged from 3 to 8 days. Postoperative rinses were advised in two studies, with one study not administering antibiotics and unclear antibiotic use in others. Three studies reported significantly reduced bacterial counts with antimicrobial-coated sutures compared to non-coated ones, while two studies found no significant differences. Triclosan-coated sutures generally showed greater antimicrobial activity, though results varied.

Conclusion: Antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery showed reduced bacterial retention compared to non-coated sutures. However, methodological variability, small sample sizes, and confounding factors limit the generalizability and reliability of these findings. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed for more definitive conclusions. While antibacterial-coated sutures show promise in reducing microbial colonization and potentially improving surgical outcomes, their cost-effectiveness relative to non-coated sutures should be evaluated in larger clinical trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信