第三磨牙手术拔牙时不同缝线菌斑的微生物学分析:系统综述。

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2025-06-30 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2025.16203
Agne Baliutaviciute, Vilius Kosys, Justina Stucinskaite-Maracinskiene
{"title":"第三磨牙手术拔牙时不同缝线菌斑的微生物学分析:系统综述。","authors":"Agne Baliutaviciute, Vilius Kosys, Justina Stucinskaite-Maracinskiene","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2025.16203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this systematic review is to assess how different types of surgical sutures impact the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque in patients undergoing impacted third molar teeth removal surgery.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Electronic literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science databases, employing electronic databases and hand searches. Keywords such as \"suture\", \"third molar\", \"wisdom teeth\", \"impacted teeth\", \"surgical extraction\" were used in various combinations with Boolean operators. A 10-year filter, English language, and full-text access filter were applied. The research spanned the period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2025, and incorporated studies on humans published in English.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic literature review included 11 studies with 649 suture samples from 360 patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery. Twenty-five suture types were used, with silk being the most common but often accumulating the highest bacterial load. Prolene<sup>®</sup> and antibacterial sutures, like Monocryl<sup>®</sup> Plus, showed significantly lower bacterial colonization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sutures after third molar surgery can promote bacterial attachment, potentially leading to infections that impact wound healing. The evidence suggests that monofilament, synthetic, and antibacterial-coated sutures are preferable for reducing bacterial colonization, whereas multifilament silk sutures should be avoided when possible due to their high bacterial retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":"16 2","pages":"e3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microbiological Analysis of Bacterial Plaque on Various Suture Types Used in Third Molar Surgical Extraction: a Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Agne Baliutaviciute, Vilius Kosys, Justina Stucinskaite-Maracinskiene\",\"doi\":\"10.5037/jomr.2025.16203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this systematic review is to assess how different types of surgical sutures impact the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque in patients undergoing impacted third molar teeth removal surgery.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Electronic literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science databases, employing electronic databases and hand searches. Keywords such as \\\"suture\\\", \\\"third molar\\\", \\\"wisdom teeth\\\", \\\"impacted teeth\\\", \\\"surgical extraction\\\" were used in various combinations with Boolean operators. A 10-year filter, English language, and full-text access filter were applied. The research spanned the period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2025, and incorporated studies on humans published in English.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic literature review included 11 studies with 649 suture samples from 360 patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery. Twenty-five suture types were used, with silk being the most common but often accumulating the highest bacterial load. Prolene<sup>®</sup> and antibacterial sutures, like Monocryl<sup>®</sup> Plus, showed significantly lower bacterial colonization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sutures after third molar surgery can promote bacterial attachment, potentially leading to infections that impact wound healing. The evidence suggests that monofilament, synthetic, and antibacterial-coated sutures are preferable for reducing bacterial colonization, whereas multifilament silk sutures should be avoided when possible due to their high bacterial retention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"e3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276081/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2025.16203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2025.16203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述的目的是评估不同类型的手术缝合线对阻生第三磨牙拔除手术患者菌斑微生物组成的影响。材料和方法:本系统综述遵循PRISMA指南。电子文献检索通过PubMed、b谷歌Scholar、ResearchGate和Web of Science数据库进行,采用电子数据库和手动检索。关键词“缝合线”、“第三磨牙”、“智齿”、“阻生牙”、“手术拔牙”与布尔运算符进行各种组合。使用了10年筛选器、英语语言和全文访问筛选器。这项研究的时间跨度从2016年1月1日到2025年1月1日,并纳入了以英语发表的人类研究。结果:系统文献综述包括11项研究,涉及360例阻生第三磨牙拔除术患者的649份缝线样本。使用了25种缝线,丝缝线是最常见的,但往往积累了最高的细菌负荷。Prolene®和抗菌缝合线(如Monocryl®Plus)的细菌定植量显著降低。结论:第三磨牙手术后的缝合线可促进细菌附着,可能导致感染,影响伤口愈合。有证据表明,单丝、合成和抗菌涂层缝合线更适合减少细菌定植,而多丝丝缝合线由于细菌潴留高,应尽可能避免使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Microbiological Analysis of Bacterial Plaque on Various Suture Types Used in Third Molar Surgical Extraction: a Systematic Review.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess how different types of surgical sutures impact the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque in patients undergoing impacted third molar teeth removal surgery.

Material and methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Electronic literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science databases, employing electronic databases and hand searches. Keywords such as "suture", "third molar", "wisdom teeth", "impacted teeth", "surgical extraction" were used in various combinations with Boolean operators. A 10-year filter, English language, and full-text access filter were applied. The research spanned the period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2025, and incorporated studies on humans published in English.

Results: The systematic literature review included 11 studies with 649 suture samples from 360 patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery. Twenty-five suture types were used, with silk being the most common but often accumulating the highest bacterial load. Prolene® and antibacterial sutures, like Monocryl® Plus, showed significantly lower bacterial colonization.

Conclusions: Sutures after third molar surgery can promote bacterial attachment, potentially leading to infections that impact wound healing. The evidence suggests that monofilament, synthetic, and antibacterial-coated sutures are preferable for reducing bacterial colonization, whereas multifilament silk sutures should be avoided when possible due to their high bacterial retention.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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