World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Silk Suture Material and Betadine-impregnated Suture Material in Oral Cavity: A Microbiological Study

Lubna Layeequa, Joyce Sequira

Keywords : Antibacterial efficacy, Antibiotics, Bacterial adherence, Bacterial characterization, Betadine (povidone-iodine)-impregnated suture, Chlorhexidine, Mucous membrane

Citation Information : Layeequa L, Sequira J. Comparative Evaluation of Silk Suture Material and Betadine-impregnated Suture Material in Oral Cavity: A Microbiological Study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (1):22-27.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1790

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: The main aim of the present study was to calculate the total colonies of microorganisms around coated and non-coated silk sutures and to evaluate antibacterial efficacy around betadine-coated sutures in comparison to silk sutures. Materials and methods: The suture selected was 3-0 silk suture for the right side with a cutting needle and 3-0 silk suture dipped in betadine solution on the left side. The extraction on the right side and left side mandibular premolar teeth were done first and sutured with normal silk suture and betadine-coated suture, respectively, second visit, 2 mm of both the sutures were removed and sent for culture, the patient was recalled on the seventh day and the entire suture was removed and was sent for culture and the healing is recorded. On the third day, 2 mm of each stitch was sectioned, and on the seventh day, the entire stitch was removed, inoculated in 10 mL of sterile physiological saline, and vortexed for 5 minutes to release the microorganisms adhered to the suture material. The serially diluted suspension was seeded (spread plate method) with a different culture media. Following the incubation process, the colonies on each plate were counted per colony-forming units (cfu/mL). A paired t-test and independent t-test were done. A paired t-test is a statistical procedure used to determine the mean difference between two sets of observations is zero. Results: The surface of silk suture as well as betadine-coated sutures, was covered with a thick layer of plaque and debris. The average contaminated area was smaller on betadine-coated suture materials, which was removed on the third then on the seventh day there were statistically significant differences between silk and betadine-impregnated sutures. Substantial reductions in bacterial adherence were observed on betadine-coated sutures compared with silk suture material. Both the types of sutures silk and betadine-coated suture healing was uneventful, even though organisms were more in normal silk suture. Conclusion: The betadine-impregnated suture has a promising potential in preventing the colonization of pathogens around the extraction area. Betadine-impregnated suture material will reduce postoperative infection. Clinical significance: This study gives data to guide the selection of suture materials for contaminated wounds or wounds at risk for developing an infection. The bacterial adherence of suture materials should be considered by all practitioners while closing wounds or debriding infected wounds. Hence, betadine-impregnated suture material will reduce postoperative infection.

  1. Mizell JS, Rosen M, Chen W, Complications of abdominal surgical incisions. UpToDate, November 2016. 2.
  2. Kumar MS, Natta S, Shankar G, et al. Comparison between silk sutures and cyanoacrylate adhesive in human mucosa - a clinical and histological study. J Int Oral Health 2013;5(5):95–100.
  3. Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, et al. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65(8):1503–1507. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.10.066.
  4. Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, et al. Suture materials-current, and emerging trends. J Biomed Mater Res A 2016;104(6):1544–1559. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35683.
  5. Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. J Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15(2):167–193. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.15.2.167-193.2002.
  6. Giglio JA, Rowland RW, Dalton HP, et al. Suture removal induced bacteremia: a possible endocarditis risk. J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123(8):65–66. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1992.0213, 69–70.
  7. King RC, Crawford JJ, Small EW. Bacteremia following intraoral suture removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;65(1):23–28. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90185-5.
  8. Otten JE, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Janke H, et al. Bacterial colonization on different suture materials–a potential risk for intraoral dentoalveolar surgery. J Biomed Mat Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2005;74B(1):627–635. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30250.
  9. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Am J Infect Control 1999;27(2):97–132. DOI: 10.1016/S0196-6553(99)70088-X.
  10. Selvig KA, Biagiotti GR, Leknes KN, et al. Oral tissue reactions to suture materials. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent 1998;18:474–487.
  11. Kruthi N, Rajasekhar G, Anuradha B, et al. Polyglactin 910 vs. Triclosan coated polyglactin 910 in oral surgery: a comparative in vivo study. Dentistry 2014;4:267.
  12. Cruz F, Leite F, Cruz G, et al. Sutures coated with antiseptic pomade to prevent bacterial colonization: a randomized clinical trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116(2):e103–e109. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2011.12.016.
  13. Storch ML, Rothenburger SJ, Jacinto G. Experimental efficacy study of coated VICRYL plus antibacterial suture in guinea pigs challenged with Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2004;5(3):281–288. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2004.5.281.
  14. Pelz K, Tödtmann N, Otten JE. Comparison of antibacterial-coated and non-coated suture material in intraoral surgery by isolation of adherent bacteria. Ann Agric Environ Med 2015;22(3):551–555. DOI: 10.5604/12321966.1167733.
  15. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B, et al. Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increase the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacteria adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63(6):765–771. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.10449.
  16. Henry-Stanley MJ, Hess DJ, Barnes AM, et al. Bacterial contamination of surgical suture resembles a biofilm. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2010;11(5):433–439. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2010.006.
  17. Storch M, Perry LC, Davidson JM, et al. A 28-day study of the effect of coated VICRYL* plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan) on wound healing in guinea pig linear incisional skin wounds. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2002;3(Suppl 1):S89–S98. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2002.3.s1-89.
  18. Ming X, Nichols M, Rothenburger S. In vivo antibacterial efficacy of monocryl plus antibacterial suture (Poliglecaprone 25 with triclosan). Surg Infect 2007;8(2):209–214. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.004.
  19. Gómez-Alonso A, García-Criado FJ, Parreño-Manchado FC, et al. Study of the efficacy of coated VICRYL plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan) in two animal models of general surgery. J Infect 2007;54(1):82–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2006.01.008.
  20. Marco F, Vállez R, González P, et al. Study of the efficacy of coated Vicryl plus antibacterial suture in an animal model of orthopedic surgery. Surg Infect 2007;8(3):359–365. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.013.
  21. Venema S, Abbas F, van de Belt-Gritter B, et al. In vitro oral biofilm formation on triclosan-coated sutures in the absence and presence of additional antiplaque treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69(4):980–985. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.02.030.
  22. Pons-Vicente O, López-Jiménez L, Sanchez-Garces MA, et al. A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(3):282–288. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x.
  23. Ming X, Rothenburger S, Yang D. In vitro antibacterial efficacy of Monocryl plus antibacterial suture (Poliglecaprone 25 with triclosan). Surg Infect 2007;8(2):201–208. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.005.
  24. Huang T, Cheng P, Chan Y, et al. Clinical, and biomechanical analyses to select a suture material for uvulopalatopharyngeal surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;143(5):655–661. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.06.919.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.