Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 27;14(3):201-210.
doi: 10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_162_23. eCollection 2024 May-Jun.

In Vitro Study of Tensile Strength Comparison of Selected Nonabsorbable and Absorbable Suture Materials after Immersion in 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate

Ezra Emmanuel B Ching  1 , Teeranut Chaiyasamut  1 , Chakorn Vorakulpipat  1
Affiliations

In Vitro Study of Tensile Strength Comparison of Selected Nonabsorbable and Absorbable Suture Materials after Immersion in 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate

Ezra Emmanuel B Ching et al. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. .

Abstract

Aim: To compare the tensile strength (TS) of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials after immersion in 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate.

Materials and methods: Six 4-0-gauge suture materials were used, namely silk (S), polypropylene (PP), polyamide 6 (PA6), polyglactin 910 (PG910), poliglecaprone 25 (PL25), and polydioxanone (PDX). A total of 540 suture materials were divided equally (90) into six groups and tested. These materials were divided into a nonimmersed condition (10) and two thermostatically controlled immersion media (40 each), using artificial saliva for the control group (CG) and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for the test group (TG). The specimens were tied to prefabricated rubber rods before immersion and removed at the testing timepoint. By using a universal testing machine (Instron 5566) with hooks attached, a hook-mounted specimen TS testing was performed on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 at a 10 mm/min crosshead speed until the material was stretched to failure, and the maximum TS was recorded in Newtons (N). The continuous variables were taken as the mean and standard deviation across the six study groups to assess the significance at α = 0.05. A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to assess the TSs over time in different media. A Bonferroni correction was performed when the data were statistically significant according to a two-factor ANOVA. Intragroup statistical comparisons were performed by repeated ANOVA for each study group. All data were analyzed using SPSS 26.

Results: The suture material TS analysis showed that nonabsorbable suture materials maintained their TS throughout the study; silk exhibited different behaviors, decreasing in TS from baseline to day 1 and maintaining its TS until day 14. All absorbable suture materials decreased in TSs by day 14. The silk and PG910 samples in the TG performed significantly better than those in the CG.

Conclusions: Prescribing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate as a postsurgical mouth rinse is safest when silk and PG910 are the optimal suture materials.

Keywords: 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate; absorbable; nonabsorbable; tensile strength; utures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest or competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample size calculation
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mounted suture sample with metal hooks on the Universal Testing Machine
Figure 3
Figure 3
Rubber rod with suture sample preparation
Figure 4
Figure 4
Experimental conditions
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of the tensile strength of different suture materials immersed in artificial saliva
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of the tensile strength of different suture materials immersed in 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shah R, Domah F, Shah N, Domah J. Surgical wound healing in the oral cavity: A review. Dent Update. 2020;47:135–43.
    1. Pippi R. Post-surgical clinical monitoring of soft tissue wound healing in periodontal and implant surgery. Int J Med Sci. 2017;14:721–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chhabra S, Chhabra N, Kaur A, Gupta N. Wound healing concepts in clinical practice of OMFS. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2017;16:403–23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peterson L. Contemporary oral and maxillofacial surgery: Second edition. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1993.
    1. Toma AI, Fuller JM, Willett NJ, Goudy SL. Oral wound healing models and emerging regenerative therapies. Transl Res: J Lab Clin Med. 2021;236:17–34. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources