Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of tensile strength of surgical synthetic absorbable suture materials: an in vitro study

  • Khiste, Sujeet Vinayak (Department of Periodontology, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre) ;
  • Ranganath, V. (Department of Periodontology, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre) ;
  • Nichani, Ashish Sham (Department of Periodontology, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre)
  • Received : 2013.02.27
  • Accepted : 2013.03.29
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tensile strength of surgical synthetic absorbable sutures over a period of 14 days under simulated oral conditions. Methods: Three suture materials (polyglycolic acid [PGA], polyglactin [PG] 910, and poly (glycolide-co-${\epsilon}$-caprolactone) [PGC]) were used in 4-0 and 5-0 gauges. 210 suture samples (35 of each material and gauge) were used. All of the samples were tested preimmersion and 1 hour and 1, 3, 7, 10, and 14 days postimmersion. The tensile strength of each suture material and gauge was assessed. The point of breakage and the resorption pattern of the sutures were also assessed. Results: During the first 24 hours of immersion, all 4-0 and 5-0 samples of PGA, PG 910, and PGC maintained their initial tensile strength. At baseline (preimmersion), there was a statistically significant (P<0.001) difference in the tensile strengths between the 4-0 and 5-0 gauge of PGA, PG 910, and PGC. PGA 4-0 showed the highest tensile strength until day 10. At 7 days, all the 4-0 sutures of the three materials had maintained their tensile strength with PGA 4-0 having significantly greater (P=0.003) tensile strength compared to PG. Conclusions: 4-0 sutures are stronger and have greater tensile strength than 5-0 sutures. The PGA 4-0 suture showed the highest tensile strength at the end of day 10.

Keywords

References

  1. Parell GJ, Becker GD. Comparison of absorbable with nonabsorbable sutures in closure of facial skin wounds. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5:488-90. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.5.6.488
  2. Pillai CK, Sharma CP. Review paper: absorbable polymeric surgical sutures: chemistry, production, properties, biodegradability, and performance. J Biomater Appl 2010;25: 291-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328210384890
  3. Wikesjo UM, Nilveus RE, Selvig KA. Significance of early healing events on periodontal repair: a review. J Periodontol 1992;63:158-65. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.3.158
  4. Vasanthan A, Satheesh K, Hoopes W, Lucaci P, Williams K, Rapley J. Comparing suture strengths for clinical applications: a novel in vitro study. J Periodontol 2009;80:618-24. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080490
  5. 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
  6. Karaca E, Hockenberger AS, Yildiz H. Investigating changes in mechanical properties and tissue reaction of silk, polyester, polyamide, and polypropylene sutures in vivo. Text Res J 2005;75:297-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517505054734
  7. Moore RL, Hill M. Suturing techniques for periodontal plastic surgery. Periodontol 2000 1996;11:103-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1996.tb00188.x
  8. Ferguson RE Jr, Schuler K, Thornton BP, Vasconez HC, Rinker B. The effect of saliva and oral intake on the tensile properties of sutures: an experimental study. Ann Plast Surg 2007;58:268-72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000245071.98517.8c
  9. Nary Filho H, Matsumoto MA, Batista AC, Lopes LC, de Goes FC, Consolaro A. Comparative study of tissue response to polyglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910 and polytetrafluorethylene suture materials in rats. Braz Dent J 2002; 13:86-91. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402002000200002
  10. van Heerden J. Comparison of inflammatory response to polyglytone 6211 and polyglecaprone 25 in a rat model. S Afr Med J 2005;95:972-4.
  11. Huang TW, Cheng PW, Chan YH, Wang CT, Fang KM, Young TH. Clinical and biomechanical analyses to select a suture material for uvulopalatopharyngeal surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;143:655-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.06.919
  12. Moser JB, Lautenschlager EP, Horbal BJ. Mechanical properties of polyglycolic acid sutures in oral surgery. J Dent Res 1974;53:804-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345740530040601
  13. Brown RP. Knotting technique and suture materials. Br J Surg 1992;79:399-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800790507
  14. Zoller GO, Zentner A. Initial attachment of human gingival fibroblast-like cells in vitro to titanium surfaces pretreated with saliva and serum. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7:311-5. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070402.x
  15. Chu CC, Moncrief G. An in vitro evaluation of the stability of mechanical properties of surgical suture materials in various pH conditions. Ann Surg 1983;198:223-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198308000-00019
  16. Kim JC, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Comparison of tensile and knot security properties of surgical sutures. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:2363-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3114-6
  17. Pavan A, Bosio M, Longo T. A comparative study of poly (glycolic acid) and catgut as suture materials: histomorphology and mechanical properties. J Biomed Mater Res 1979;13:477-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820130312
  18. von Fraunhofer JA, Storey RJ, Masterson BJ. Tensile properties of suture materials. Biomaterials 1988;9:324-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(88)90027-0
  19. Shetty PC, Dicksheet S, Scalea TM. Emergency department repair of hand lacerations using absorbable vicryl sutures. J Emerg Med 1997;15:673-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-4679(97)00147-9
  20. Tiyek I, Gemci R, Turkoglu S. Comparison of physical properties of sutures in medical liquids. Int J Phys Sci 2011;6: 2158-68.

Cited by

  1. Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery vol.31, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5356-1
  2. Decalcification prevention around orthodontic brackets bonded to bleached enamel using different topical agents vol.18, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0170-4
  3. The Effect of Suture Materials on the Biomechanical Performance of Different Flexor Tendon Repairs and the Concept of Construct Efficiency vol.23, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1142/s2424835518500285
  4. The Effect of Chlorhexidine and Listerine® Mouthwashes on the Tensile Strength of Selected Absorbable Sutures: An In Vitro Study vol.2018, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8531706
  5. Comparison of Artificial Saliva vs Saline Solution on Rate of Suture Degradation in Oropharyngeal Surgery vol.144, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.1441
  6. Tensile Strength of Novel Nonabsorbable PTFE (Teflon®) versus Other Suture Materials: An In Vitro Study vol.2019, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7419708
  7. Multifunctional Biomedical Adhesives vol.8, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201801568
  8. Biomechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of a Non-Absorbable Elastic Thread vol.10, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb10040051
  9. Polyetheretherketone and Its Composites for Bone Replacement and Regeneration vol.12, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12122858
  10. Remineralization Potential and Shear Bond Strength of Surface Treated Hypomineralized Enamel in Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study vol.12, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/2320206820977734
  11. A Biosynthetic Hybrid Spidroin-Amyloid-Mussel Foot Protein for Underwater Adhesion on Diverse Surfaces vol.13, pp.41, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c14182
  12. Mechanical characterization of hydrolysis effects on the stiffness of bioabsorbable polymeric filaments: An experimental and modeling approach based on a simple constitutive damage model vol.29, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0967391121998822