Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology · 2019
Comparative evaluation of two antibacterial-coated resorbable sutures versus noncoated resorbable sutures in periodontal flap surgery: A clinico-microbiological study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karde Prerna Ashok, Sethi Kunal Sunder, Mahale Swapna Arunkumar, Mamajiwala Alefiya Shabbir, Kale Aishwarya Madhukar, Joshi Chaitanya Pradeep
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sutures at the surgical site can act as a reservoir for microbes, leading to surgical site infection. This mainly occurs in braided sutures due to wicking action. The use of triclosan-coated suture (TCS) or chlorhexidine-coated suture (CCS) could be one of the possible alternatives to reduce the microbial load.
OBJECTIVES: The study was designed to assess the antibacterial efficacy of resorbable TCS and CCS along with its effect on healing after periodontal flap surgery in comparison to noncoated sutures (NCSs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with chronic periodontitis indicated for periodontal flap surgery satisfying inclusion criteria were randomly assigned in the three groups: (1) NCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (control group), (2) TCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (experimental Group A), and (3) CCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (experimental Group B). All the patients were evaluated at day 0 (baseline), day 8, day 15, and day 30 for healing index (HI), postoperative pain (POP), and visible plaque index (VPI). Aerobic and anaerobic bacterial growth around each suture was evaluated after day 8. Two randomly chosen samples from each group were examined using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) for the presence of biofilm.
RESULTS: Although intergroup HI and POP were statistically insignificant (P > 0.05), intragroup evaluation showed statistically significant improvement. VPI was more in NCS compared to antibacterial sutures. There was significantly less concentration of anaerobic bacteria as compared to aerobic bacteria (P < 0.05). CLSM showed the presence of more viable bacteria on NCS as compared to antibacterial sutures.
CONCLUSION: TCS or CCS sutures can be used in periodontal surgeries to reduce the bacterial load at the surgical sites.
OBJECTIVES: The study was designed to assess the antibacterial efficacy of resorbable TCS and CCS along with its effect on healing after periodontal flap surgery in comparison to noncoated sutures (NCSs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with chronic periodontitis indicated for periodontal flap surgery satisfying inclusion criteria were randomly assigned in the three groups: (1) NCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (control group), (2) TCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (experimental Group A), and (3) CCS-polyglycolic acid sutures (experimental Group B). All the patients were evaluated at day 0 (baseline), day 8, day 15, and day 30 for healing index (HI), postoperative pain (POP), and visible plaque index (VPI). Aerobic and anaerobic bacterial growth around each suture was evaluated after day 8. Two randomly chosen samples from each group were examined using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) for the presence of biofilm.
RESULTS: Although intergroup HI and POP were statistically insignificant (P > 0.05), intragroup evaluation showed statistically significant improvement. VPI was more in NCS compared to antibacterial sutures. There was significantly less concentration of anaerobic bacteria as compared to aerobic bacteria (P < 0.05). CLSM showed the presence of more viable bacteria on NCS as compared to antibacterial sutures.
CONCLUSION: TCS or CCS sutures can be used in periodontal surgeries to reduce the bacterial load at the surgical sites.