A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology
Identifieur interne : 006E96 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 006E95; suivant : 006E97A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology
Auteurs : Olivia Pons-Vicente ; Lidia L Pez-Jiménez ; Ma Angels Sánchez-Garcés ; Sergi Sala-Pérez ; Cosme Gay-EscodaSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2011-03.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Agar, Bacterial adherence, Bacterial adhesion, Bacterial colonization, Banche, Barcelona, Clin, Colonization, Costerton, Deknatel, Different suture materials, Impl, Implant, Implantology, Intraoperative handling, John wiley sons, Leknes, Microorganism, Oral impl, Oral surgery, Parirokh, Patient comfort, Plaque accumulation, Polyester suture, Polyester sutures, Present study, Selvig, Silk suture, Silk sutures, Surgical, Suture, Suture material, Suture materials, Tevdek, Tissue reaction.
- Teeft :
- Agar, Bacterial adherence, Bacterial adhesion, Bacterial colonization, Banche, Barcelona, Clin, Colonization, Costerton, Deknatel, Different suture materials, Impl, Implant, Implantology, Intraoperative handling, John wiley sons, Leknes, Microorganism, Oral impl, Oral surgery, Parirokh, Patient comfort, Plaque accumulation, Polyester suture, Polyester sutures, Present study, Selvig, Silk suture, Silk sutures, Surgical, Suture, Suture material, Suture materials, Tevdek, Tissue reaction.
Abstract
Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title><author><name sortKey="Pons Icente, Olivia" sort="Pons Icente, Olivia" uniqKey="Pons Icente O" first="Olivia" last="Pons-Vicente">Olivia Pons-Vicente</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="L Pez Imenez, Lidia" sort="L Pez Imenez, Lidia" uniqKey="L Pez Imenez L" first="Lidia" last="L Pez-Jiménez">Lidia L Pez-Jiménez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sanchez Arces, Ma Angels" sort="Sanchez Arces, Ma Angels" uniqKey="Sanchez Arces M" first="Ma Angels" last="Sánchez-Garcés">Ma Angels Sánchez-Garcés</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sala Erez, Sergi" sort="Sala Erez, Sergi" uniqKey="Sala Erez S" first="Sergi" last="Sala-Pérez">Sergi Sala-Pérez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gay Scoda, Cosme" sort="Gay Scoda, Cosme" uniqKey="Gay Scoda C" first="Cosme" last="Gay-Escoda">Cosme Gay-Escoda</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">006E96</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">006E96</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title><author><name sortKey="Pons Icente, Olivia" sort="Pons Icente, Olivia" uniqKey="Pons Icente O" first="Olivia" last="Pons-Vicente">Olivia Pons-Vicente</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="L Pez Imenez, Lidia" sort="L Pez Imenez, Lidia" uniqKey="L Pez Imenez L" first="Lidia" last="L Pez-Jiménez">Lidia L Pez-Jiménez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sanchez Arces, Ma Angels" sort="Sanchez Arces, Ma Angels" uniqKey="Sanchez Arces M" first="Ma Angels" last="Sánchez-Garcés">Ma Angels Sánchez-Garcés</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sala Erez, Sergi" sort="Sala Erez, Sergi" uniqKey="Sala Erez S" first="Sergi" last="Sala-Pérez">Sergi Sala-Pérez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gay Scoda, Cosme" sort="Gay Scoda, Cosme" uniqKey="Gay Scoda C" first="Cosme" last="Gay-Escoda">Cosme Gay-Escoda</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="282">282</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="288">288</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-03">2011-03</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Agar</term><term>Bacterial adherence</term><term>Bacterial adhesion</term><term>Bacterial colonization</term><term>Banche</term><term>Barcelona</term><term>Clin</term><term>Colonization</term><term>Costerton</term><term>Deknatel</term><term>Different suture materials</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implantology</term><term>Intraoperative handling</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Leknes</term><term>Microorganism</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Parirokh</term><term>Patient comfort</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Polyester suture</term><term>Polyester sutures</term><term>Present study</term><term>Selvig</term><term>Silk suture</term><term>Silk sutures</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Suture</term><term>Suture material</term><term>Suture materials</term><term>Tevdek</term><term>Tissue reaction</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Agar</term><term>Bacterial adherence</term><term>Bacterial adhesion</term><term>Bacterial colonization</term><term>Banche</term><term>Barcelona</term><term>Clin</term><term>Colonization</term><term>Costerton</term><term>Deknatel</term><term>Different suture materials</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implantology</term><term>Intraoperative handling</term><term>John wiley sons</term><term>Leknes</term><term>Microorganism</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Oral surgery</term><term>Parirokh</term><term>Patient comfort</term><term>Plaque accumulation</term><term>Polyester suture</term><term>Polyester sutures</term><term>Present study</term><term>Selvig</term><term>Silk suture</term><term>Silk sutures</term><term>Surgical</term><term>Suture</term><term>Suture material</term><term>Suture materials</term><term>Tevdek</term><term>Tissue reaction</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>suture</json:string><json:string>leknes</json:string><json:string>suture materials</json:string><json:string>selvig</json:string><json:string>barcelona</json:string><json:string>oral surgery</json:string><json:string>parirokh</json:string><json:string>tevdek</json:string><json:string>silk sutures</json:string><json:string>bacterial adherence</json:string><json:string>polyester suture</json:string><json:string>colonization</json:string><json:string>deknatel</json:string><json:string>agar</json:string><json:string>suture material</json:string><json:string>costerton</json:string><json:string>implantology</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>banche</json:string><json:string>bacterial colonization</json:string><json:string>silk suture</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>john wiley sons</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>surgical</json:string><json:string>different suture materials</json:string><json:string>patient comfort</json:string><json:string>plaque accumulation</json:string><json:string>polyester sutures</json:string><json:string>bacterial adhesion</json:string><json:string>microorganism</json:string><json:string>intraoperative handling</json:string><json:string>tissue reaction</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>plaque</json:string><json:string>suture removal</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>tevdek deknatel</json:string><json:string>aderriotis sandor</json:string><json:string>clinical parameters</json:string><json:string>organic origin</json:string><json:string>colony counts</json:string><json:string>vivo study</json:string><json:string>oral medicine</json:string><json:string>capillary action</json:string><json:string>biomedical materials research</json:string><json:string>oral pathology</json:string><json:string>polyester</json:string><json:string>bacterial accumulation</json:string><json:string>pathogen microorganisms</json:string><json:string>synthetic sutures</json:string><json:string>surgical procedure</json:string><json:string>bacterial plaque</json:string><json:string>infection process</json:string><json:string>statistical difference</json:string><json:string>dental implants</json:string><json:string>partial edentulism</json:string><json:string>systemic diseases</json:string><json:string>surgical procedures</json:string><json:string>suture types</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string><json:string>smoking habit</json:string><json:string>edentulous patients</json:string><json:string>comparative study</json:string><json:string>suture fragments</json:string><json:string>strength solution</json:string><json:string>donlan costerton</json:string><json:string>sheep blood</json:string><json:string>agar plates</json:string><json:string>streptococcus mutans</json:string><json:string>wound suppuration</json:string><json:string>bacterial formation</json:string><json:string>statistical results</json:string><json:string>bacterial growth</json:string><json:string>bigger sample size</json:string><json:string>visual analogue scale</json:string><json:string>oral tissues</json:string><json:string>surgical silk</json:string><json:string>prospective study</json:string><json:string>maxillofacial surgery</json:string><json:string>experimental study</json:string><json:string>acta chirurgica scandinavica</json:string><json:string>soft tissues</json:string><json:string>plain catgut</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Olivia Pons‐Vicente</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Lidia López‐Jiménez</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ma Angels Sánchez‐Garcés</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Sergi Sala‐Pérez</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Cosme Gay‐Escoda</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bacterial adherence</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bacterial plaque</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>contamination</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>multi‐filament</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>silk</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>suture material</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR1993</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-HKM7V93C-9</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.748</score><pdfWordCount>4472</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>29317</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>23</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>181</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title><pmid><json:string>21039893</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>282</first><last>288</last><total>7</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2011</json:string><json:string>0</json:string><json:string>7</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Barcelona Spain Tel</json:string><json:string>Research Group</json:string><json:string>SPSS Inc., Chicago</json:string><json:string>Department of Pathology and Lidia</json:string><json:string>University of Barcelona</json:string><json:string>Implantology Department of the University of Barcelona</json:string><json:string>Department of Microbiology</json:string><json:string>Laboratory of Microbiology</json:string><json:string>Spain Key</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>John Wiley</json:string><json:string>Cosme Gay-Escoda</json:string><json:string>Olivia Pons-Vicente</json:string><json:string>Miquel Vinas-Ciordia</json:string><json:string>Ma Angels</json:string><json:string>Cosme Gay</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Madrid</json:string><json:string>Barcelona</json:string><json:string>Spain</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Chu & Williams 1984</json:string><json:string>Guiray et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Burkhardt et al. 2008</json:string><json:string>Aderriotis & Sandor 1999</json:string><json:string>June 2007</json:string><json:string>Leknes et al. 2005a, 2005b</json:string><json:string>Pinheiro et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Leknes et al. 2005b</json:string><json:string>Otten et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Lilly et al. 1968</json:string><json:string>Tomita et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Renton-Harper et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Senpuku et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Leknes et al. 2005a</json:string><json:string>Costerton et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Merrit et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Osterberg & Blomstedt 1979</json:string><json:string>McCaul et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Wallace et al. 1970</json:string><json:string>Deknatel 2007</json:string><json:string>Gay-Escoda et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Racey et al. 1978</json:string><json:string>Stillman et al. 1980</json:string><json:string>Yu & Cavaliere 1983</json:string><json:string>Surgery and Oral 2010</json:string><json:string>Pons-Vicente et al</json:string><json:string>Donlan & Costerton 2002</json:string><json:string>Yaltirik et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Lilly et al. 1968, 1972</json:string><json:string>July 2007</json:string><json:string>Laroche et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Banche et al. 2007</json:string><json:string>Selvig et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Menendez et al. 2005</json:string><json:string>Greenwald et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Blomstedt et al. 1977</json:string><json:string>GayEscoda et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Bajaj et al. 2004</json:string><json:string>Gristina & Costerton 1985</json:string><json:string>Leknes et al. (2005b)</json:string><json:string>Parirokh et al. 2004</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-HKM7V93C-9</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</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 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x</json:string></doi><id>DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2011-03"></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">A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title><title level="a" type="short">Bacterial colonization on suture materials</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Olivia</forename><surname>Pons‐Vicente</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain<address><country key="ES"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Lidia</forename><surname>López‐Jiménez</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain<address><country key="ES"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Ma Angels</forename><surname>Sánchez‐Garcés</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain<address><country key="ES"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Sergi</forename><surname>Sala‐Pérez</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain<address><country key="ES"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Cosme</forename><surname>Gay‐Escoda</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain<address><country key="ES"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HKM7V93C-9</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR1993</idno><idno type="supplier">1993</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR1993.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2011.22.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="282">282</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="288">288</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">7</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-03"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>Abstract</head><p><hi rend="bold">Objective: </hi> The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material and methods: </hi> Ten edentulous or partially edentulous patients were surgically treated for implant installation. Each side was sutured with either, randomly selected one or the other suture material. Seven days postsurgically, the sutures were removed and three knots per patient and side were collected for microbiological testing. Additionally, a piece of each suture thread was analysed before clinical use to test its susceptibility for bacterial adherence. To evaluate the patient's subjective opinion, a questionnaire based on Visual Analogue Scale had to be filled out by all included patients 1 week after the intervention.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results: </hi> The results showed a more pronounced plaque accumulation for silk sutures but there was not a statistical difference. The intraoperative handling of the silk sutures was less comfortable and the patient comfort was worse than Teflon‐coated polyester suture.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusion: </hi> The bacterial adherence on Teflon‐coated polyester suture was slightly inferior than silk suture although it did not show the expected differences.</p><p>
<hi rend="bold">To cite this article:</hi>
Pons‐Vicente O, López‐Jiménez L, Sánchez‐Garcés M<hi rend="superscript">a</hi> A, Sala‐Pérez S, Gay‐Escoda C.
A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology.
<hi rend="italic">Clin. Oral Impl. Res</hi>. <hi rend="bold">22</hi>, 2011; 282–288.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01993.x</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">bacterial adherence</term><term xml:id="k2">bacterial plaque</term><term xml:id="k3">contamination</term><term xml:id="k4">multi‐filament</term><term xml:id="k5">silk</term><term xml:id="k6">suture material</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</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/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/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)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="03103"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2011.22.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="22">22</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-03">March 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="7" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR1993"></id><id type="supplier" value="1993"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4.4 mode:FullText" date="2011-02-01"></event><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2010-10-06"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-10-06"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-02-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></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="282">282</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="288">288</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Corresponding author:</b>
<i>Prof. Dr Cosme Gay‐Escoda</i>
Centro Médico Teknon
Instituto de Investigación
IDIBELL
C/Vilana no. 12
08022 Barcelona
Spain
Tel.: +34 93 402 4274
Fax: +34 93 393 3070
e‐mail: <email normalForm="cgay@ub.edu">cgay@ub.edu</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR1993.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> , Accepted 11 May 2010</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="4"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="34"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5669"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="46"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title><title type="shortAuthors">Pons‐Vicente et al.</title><title type="short">Bacterial colonization on suture materials</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Olivia</givenNames><familyName>Pons‐Vicente</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Lidia</givenNames><familyName>López‐Jiménez</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Ma Angels</givenNames><familyName>Sánchez‐Garcés</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Sergi</givenNames><familyName>Sala‐Pérez</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Cosme</givenNames><familyName>Gay‐Escoda</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="ES"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="ES"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">bacterial adherence</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">bacterial plaque</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">contamination</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">multi‐filament</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">silk</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">suture material</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p><b>Objective: </b> The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.</p><p><b>Material and methods: </b> Ten edentulous or partially edentulous patients were surgically treated for implant installation. Each side was sutured with either, randomly selected one or the other suture material. Seven days postsurgically, the sutures were removed and three knots per patient and side were collected for microbiological testing. Additionally, a piece of each suture thread was analysed before clinical use to test its susceptibility for bacterial adherence. To evaluate the patient's subjective opinion, a questionnaire based on Visual Analogue Scale had to be filled out by all included patients 1 week after the intervention.</p><p><b>Results: </b> The results showed a more pronounced plaque accumulation for silk sutures but there was not a statistical difference. The intraoperative handling of the silk sutures was less comfortable and the patient comfort was worse than Teflon‐coated polyester suture.</p><p><b>Conclusion: </b> The bacterial adherence on Teflon‐coated polyester suture was slightly inferior than silk suture although it did not show the expected differences.</p><p> <b>To cite this article:</b>
Pons‐Vicente O, López‐Jiménez L, Sánchez‐Garcés M<sup>a</sup> A, Sala‐Pérez S, Gay‐Escoda C.
A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology.
<i>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</i>. <b>22</b>, 2011; 282–288.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01993.x</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Bacterial colonization on suture materials</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Olivia</namePart><namePart type="family">Pons‐Vicente</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lidia</namePart><namePart type="family">López‐Jiménez</namePart><affiliation>Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ma Angels</namePart><namePart type="family">Sánchez‐Garcés</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Sergi</namePart><namePart type="family">Sala‐Pérez</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Cosme</namePart><namePart type="family">Gay‐Escoda</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Surgery and Orofacial Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain</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">2011-03</dateIssued><edition>Date: , Accepted 11 May 2010</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">4</extent><extent unit="tables">0</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">34</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">46</extent><extent unit="words">5669</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Objective: The prospective study compares, in split‐mouth design, the use of two different suture materials, silk vs. Teflon‐coated, multi‐filament braided polyester threads suture.</abstract><abstract>Material and methods: Ten edentulous or partially edentulous patients were surgically treated for implant installation. Each side was sutured with either, randomly selected one or the other suture material. Seven days postsurgically, the sutures were removed and three knots per patient and side were collected for microbiological testing. Additionally, a piece of each suture thread was analysed before clinical use to test its susceptibility for bacterial adherence. To evaluate the patient's subjective opinion, a questionnaire based on Visual Analogue Scale had to be filled out by all included patients 1 week after the intervention.</abstract><abstract>Results: The results showed a more pronounced plaque accumulation for silk sutures but there was not a statistical difference. The intraoperative handling of the silk sutures was less comfortable and the patient comfort was worse than Teflon‐coated polyester suture.</abstract><abstract>Conclusion: The bacterial adherence on Teflon‐coated polyester suture was slightly inferior than silk suture although it did not show the expected differences.</abstract><abstract>To cite this article:
Pons‐Vicente O, López‐Jiménez L, Sánchez‐Garcés Ma A, Sala‐Pérez S, Gay‐Escoda C.
A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 282–288.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01993.x</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>bacterial adherence</topic><topic>bacterial plaque</topic><topic>contamination</topic><topic>multi‐filament</topic><topic>silk</topic><topic>suture material</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants 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">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>282</start><end>288</end><total>7</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-HKM7V93C-9</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01993.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR1993</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S</accessCondition><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/DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0/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 006E96 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 006E96 | 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:DF917735B2C2F0BBEA938D40FDB8BC32F5025BF0
|texte= A comparative study between two different suture materials in oral implantology
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |