The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Impact of Fluoridated Mouthwashes on Strength and Durability of Three Different Synthetic Absorbable Suturing Materials: An In Vitro Study

Asutosh Das, Rekha Vasantha Ravi

Keywords : Absorbable suture materials, Artificial saliva, Mouthwash, Tensile strength

Citation Information : Das A, Ravi RV. Impact of Fluoridated Mouthwashes on Strength and Durability of Three Different Synthetic Absorbable Suturing Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (4):431-436.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3321

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the current in vitro research was to assess the effect of fluoride-containing mouthwashes on the strength and durability of three different synthetic absorbable suturing materials. Materials and methods: Three types of synthetic absorbable suture materials were employed in this research, and every group comprised 20 suture samples. These include group I: Polyglactin 910, group II: Polyglycolic acid, and group III: Poliglecaprone 25. This research utilized 4-0 gauge sutures. Each example was tied using a square surgeon's knot about elastic rubber tubing. The biology of the oral milieu was replicated in vitro through the use of artificial saliva. The medium that was subjected to test prior to inclusion were 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate as well as 0.044% sodium fluoride. The tensile strength of the specimen suture materials was subjected to test at a particular time intervals: prior to immersion, the 1st day, the 7th day, as well as the 14th day after immersion. Tensile strength was evaluated using a Universal Ultra Test machine. Results: Post-immersion in 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse, the mean tensile strength of polyglactin (PLG) 910 sutures was 24.48 ± 0.08 at pre-immersion and 4.36 ± 0.01 on the 14th day. The mean tensile strength of polyglycolic acid (PGA) sutures was 24.04 ± 0.26 at pre-immersion and 2.10 ± 0.02 on the 14th day. The mean tensile strength of Poliglecaprone 25 sutures was 23.82 ± 0.11 at pre-immersion and 1.34 ± 0.08 on the 14th day. Post-immersion in 0.044% sodium fluoride mouthrinse, the mean tensile strength of PLG 910 sutures was 24.18 ± 0.02 at pre-immersion and 5.12 ± 0.21 on the 14th day. The mean tensile strength of PGA sutures was 24.88 ± 0.34 at pre-immersion and 4.58 ± 0.10 on the 14th day. The mean tensile strength of Poliglecaprone 25 sutures was 24.48 ± 0.27 at pre-immersion and 5.08 ± 0.14 on the 14th day. A statistically noteworthy difference was noted amid the three types of sutures at dissimilar time points evaluated with p <0.001. Conclusion: The current research arrived at a conclusion that there is a significant difference between the mean tensile strength and purpose of the medium used for immersion as well as the tenure. Polyglactin suture material exhibited superior strength as compared to PGA and poliglecaprone suture substances following immersion in the investigational media. Clinical significance: Suture materials are employed in the closure of incised flaps, to aid healing by primary intention, along with control of bleeding. In oral as well as periodontal surgery, the right choice of sutures is very important for good healing. Suture choice for the mouth should be influenced by the requirements of the anticipated repair and the surgeon's fondness.

PDF Share
  1. Tjokorda Gde Tirta Nindhia, Putu Astawa I, Tjokorda Sari Nindhia, et al. Comparison tensile strength of natural and synthetic absorbable sutures. Int J Appl Pharmaceutics 2019;11(5):157–159. DOI: 10.22159/ijap.2019.v11s5.T1011.
  2. Asvar Z, Mirzaei E, Azarpira N, et al. Evaluation of electrospinning parameters on the tensile strength and suture retention strength of polycaprolactone nanofibrous scaffolds through surface response methodology. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;75:369–378. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.08.004.
  3. Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, et al. Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tissues of rats. Oral Dis 2003;9(6):284–286. DOI: 10.1034/j.1601-0825.2003.00954.x.
  4. 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(4):297–303. DOI: 10.1177/0040517505054734.
  5. Nary Filho H, Matsumoto MA, Batista AC, et al. Comparative study of tissue response to polyglecaprone 25, polyglactin 910 and polytetrafluorethylene suture materials in rats. Braz Dent J 2002;13(2):86–91. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402002000200002.
  6. Pillai CK, Sharma CP. Review paper: absorbable polymeric surgical sutures: chemistry, production, properties, biodegradability, and performance. J Biomater Appl 2010;25(4):291–366. DOI: 10.1177/0885328210384890.
  7. Khiste SV, Ranganath V, Nichani AS. Evaluation of tensile strength of surgical synthetic absorbable suture materials: an in vitro study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2013;43(3):130–135. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2013.43.3.130.
  8. Joshi C, Gohil U, Parekh V, et al. Comparative evaluation of the remineralizing potential of commercially available agents on artificially demineralized human enamel: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2019;10(4):605–613. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_679_18.
  9. Minozzi F, Bollero P, Unfer V. The sutures in dentistry. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2009;13(3):217–226. PMID: 19673173.
  10. Manfredini M, Ferrario S, Beretta P, et al. Evaluation of breaking force of different suture materials used in dentistry: an in vitro mechanical comparison. Materials 2022;15(3):1082. DOI: 10.3390/ma15031082.
  11. Karabulut R, Sonmez K, Turkyilmaz Z, et al. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation of tensile strength and durability of seven suture materials in various pH and different conditions: an experimental study in rats. Indian J Surg 2010;72(5):386–390. DOI: 10.1007/s12262-010-0158-5.
  12. Kim JS, Shin SI, Herr Y, et al. Tissue reactions to suture materials in the oral mucosa of beagle dogs. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2011;41(4):185–191. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2011.41.4.185.
  13. Alsarhan M, Alnofaie H, Ateeq R, et al. The effect of chlorhexidine and listerine® mouthwashes on the tensile strength of selected absorbable sutures: an in vitro study. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:8531706. DOI: 10.1155/2018/8531706.
  14. McCaul LK, Bagg J, Jenkins WM. Rate of loss of irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide) from the mouth: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38(4):328–330. DOI: 10.1054/bjom.2000.0301.
  15. Fomete B, Saheeb BD, Obiadazie AC. A prospective clinical evaluation of the longevity of resorbable sutures in oral surgical procedures. Niger J Clin Pract 2013;16(3):334–338. DOI: 10.1054/bjom.2000.0301.
  16. 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(2):223–228. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198308000-00019.
  17. Ferguson RE Jr, Schuler K, Thornton BP, et al. The effect of saliva and oral intake on the tensile properties of sutures: an experimental study. Ann Plast Surg 2007;58(3):268–272. DOI: 10.1097/
  18. Shaw RJ, Negus TW, Mellor TK. A prospective clinical evaluation of the longevity of resorbable sutures in oral mucosa. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34(3):252–254. DOI: 10.1016/s0266-4356(96)90280-6.
  19. Varma SR, Jaber M, Aboufanas S, et al. Evaluating tensile strengths of absorbable suture materials in herbal solutions: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2019;11(3):148–152. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_79_19.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.