Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study
Identifieur interne : 001739 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001738; suivant : 001740Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study
Auteurs : Carl-Johan Ivanoff ; Göran WidmarkSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2001-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Absorbable, Abutment, Abutment surgery, Branemark, Continuous suture, Continuous suture technique, Dehiscence, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Higher incidence, Implant, Implant loss, Maxillofacial surgery, Molndal, Molndal hospital, Nonresorbable, Oral cavity, Oral implant surgery, Polyglactin, Postoperative, Present study, Rapide, Security sutures, Supramid, Supramid group, Surg, Surgical, Suture, Suture material, Vicryl, Vicryl rapide, Vicryl rapide group, Vicryl rapide suture, Vicryl rapide sutures, Wound dehiscence.
- Teeft :
- Absorbable, Abutment, Abutment surgery, Branemark, Continuous suture, Continuous suture technique, Dehiscence, Edentulous, Edentulous patients, Higher incidence, Implant, Implant loss, Maxillofacial surgery, Molndal, Molndal hospital, Nonresorbable, Oral cavity, Oral implant surgery, Polyglactin, Postoperative, Present study, Rapide, Security sutures, Supramid, Supramid group, Surg, Surgical, Suture, Suture material, Vicryl, Vicryl rapide, Vicryl rapide group, Vicryl rapide suture, Vicryl rapide sutures, Wound dehiscence.
Abstract
Background: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery. Materials and Methods: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded. Results: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title><author><name sortKey="Ivanoff, Carl Ohan" sort="Ivanoff, Carl Ohan" uniqKey="Ivanoff C" first="Carl-Johan" last="Ivanoff">Carl-Johan Ivanoff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Widmark, Goran" sort="Widmark, Goran" uniqKey="Widmark G" first="Göran" last="Widmark">Göran Widmark</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D</idno><date when="2001" year="2001">2001</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001739</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001739</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title><author><name sortKey="Ivanoff, Carl Ohan" sort="Ivanoff, Carl Ohan" uniqKey="Ivanoff C" first="Carl-Johan" last="Ivanoff">Carl-Johan Ivanoff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Widmark, Goran" sort="Widmark, Goran" uniqKey="Widmark G" first="Göran" last="Widmark">Göran Widmark</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="57">57</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="60">60</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">4</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-01">2001-01</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Absorbable</term><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment surgery</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Continuous suture</term><term>Continuous suture technique</term><term>Dehiscence</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Higher incidence</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Molndal</term><term>Molndal hospital</term><term>Nonresorbable</term><term>Oral cavity</term><term>Oral implant surgery</term><term>Polyglactin</term><term>Postoperative</term><term>Present study</term><term>Rapide</term><term>Security sutures</term><term>Supramid</term><term>Supramid group</term><term>Surg</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Suture</term><term>Suture material</term><term>Vicryl</term><term>Vicryl rapide</term><term>Vicryl rapide group</term><term>Vicryl rapide suture</term><term>Vicryl rapide sutures</term><term>Wound dehiscence</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Absorbable</term><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment surgery</term><term>Branemark</term><term>Continuous suture</term><term>Continuous suture technique</term><term>Dehiscence</term><term>Edentulous</term><term>Edentulous patients</term><term>Higher incidence</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant loss</term><term>Maxillofacial surgery</term><term>Molndal</term><term>Molndal hospital</term><term>Nonresorbable</term><term>Oral cavity</term><term>Oral implant surgery</term><term>Polyglactin</term><term>Postoperative</term><term>Present study</term><term>Rapide</term><term>Security sutures</term><term>Supramid</term><term>Supramid group</term><term>Surg</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Suture</term><term>Suture material</term><term>Vicryl</term><term>Vicryl rapide</term><term>Vicryl rapide group</term><term>Vicryl rapide suture</term><term>Vicryl rapide sutures</term><term>Wound dehiscence</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Background: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery. Materials and Methods: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded. Results: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>suture</json:string><json:string>vicryl</json:string><json:string>rapide</json:string><json:string>polyglactin</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>dehiscence</json:string><json:string>vicryl rapide group</json:string><json:string>supramid</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>abutment surgery</json:string><json:string>wound dehiscence</json:string><json:string>absorbable</json:string><json:string>surg</json:string><json:string>molndal</json:string><json:string>suture material</json:string><json:string>supramid group</json:string><json:string>nonresorbable</json:string><json:string>continuous suture</json:string><json:string>security sutures</json:string><json:string>oral implant surgery</json:string><json:string>edentulous</json:string><json:string>postoperative</json:string><json:string>higher incidence</json:string><json:string>vicryl rapide sutures</json:string><json:string>branemark</json:string><json:string>vicryl rapide</json:string><json:string>vicryl rapide suture</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>oral cavity</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>continuous suture technique</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>implant loss</json:string><json:string>molndal hospital</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Carl‐Johan Ivanoff DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string><json:string>E-mail: carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Göran Widmark DDS, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>complications</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>irradiated polyglactin 910</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sutures</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID57</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-3K08X78M-T</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Background: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery. Materials and Methods: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded. Results: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.905</score><pdfWordCount>2049</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>12424</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>4</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>576 x 791.759 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>238</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1600</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title><pmid><json:string>11441544</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>57</first><last>60</last><total>4</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2001</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Molndal Hospital</json:string><json:string>Molndal Hospital, Molndal, Sweden</json:string><json:string>BC Decker Inc</json:string><json:string>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden Reprint</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Selection</json:string><json:string>Duprez</json:string><json:string>Carol-Johan Ivanoff</json:string><json:string>Aderriotis</json:string><json:string>Goran Widmark</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Denmark</json:string><json:string>Copenhagen</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-3K08X78M-T</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - chirurgie (generalites). transplantations, greffes d'organes et de tissus. pathologie des greffons</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2001</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x</json:string></doi><id>2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-01"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Carl‐Johan</forename><surname>Ivanoff</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation><affiliation>Reprint requests: Carol‐Johan Ivanoff, DDS, PhD, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, S‐431 80 Mölndal, Sweden; e‐mail: carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Göran</forename><surname>Widmark</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden<address><country key="SE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-3K08X78M-T</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID57</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID57.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2001.3.issue-1</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="57">57</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="60">60</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">4</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2001-01"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p>
<hi rend="italic">Background</hi>: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Purpose</hi>: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Materials and Methods</hi>: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Results</hi>: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used.</p><p>
<hi rend="italic">Conclusions</hi>: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">complications</term><term xml:id="k2">irradiated polyglactin 910</term><term xml:id="k3">oral implants</term><term xml:id="k4">sutures</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="01001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2001.3.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="3">3</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2001-01">January 2001</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0005700" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID57"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="4"></count></countGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2007-04-10"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-04-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.5 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-04-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="57">57</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="60">60</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Reprint requests: Carol‐Johan Ivanoff, DDS, PhD, Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, S‐431 80 Mölndal, Sweden; e‐mail: <email normalForm="carl-johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se">carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID57.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="16"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="3"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Carl‐Johan</givenNames><familyName>Ivanoff</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Göran</givenNames><familyName>Widmark</familyName><degrees>DDS, PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="SE"><unparsedAffiliation>
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden <sup>†</sup>Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">complications</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">irradiated polyglactin 910</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">oral implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">sutures</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p> <i>Background</i>: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well.</p><p> <i>Purpose</i>: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery.</p><p> <i>Materials and Methods</i>: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded.</p><p> <i>Results</i>: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used.</p><p> <i>Conclusions</i>: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Carl‐Johan</namePart><namePart type="family">Ivanoff</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: carl‐johan.ivanoff@vgregion.se</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Göran</namePart><namePart type="family">Widmark</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mölndal Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden †Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2001-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2001</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">16</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">3</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Background: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproxima‐tion of the flaps. Fast‐absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast‐absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery. Materials and Methods: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3‐0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded. Results: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted “security sutures” if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast‐absorption suture material.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>complications</topic><topic>irradiated polyglactin 910</topic><topic>oral implants</topic><topic>sutures</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2001</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>3</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>57</start><end>60</end><total>4</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-3K08X78M-T</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00129.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID57</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001739 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001739 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:2FD0E4560C60DAD369CD971B993AE2EF4F8C0F1D
|texte= Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |