Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Comparison of bacterial colonies adherence on silk and catgut sutures in odontectomy patient at Dr. Pirngadi Hospital

  • Rahmi Syaflida ,
  • Olivia A. Hanafiah ,
  • Ahyar Riza ,
  • Muhammad R. Fauzie ,

Abstract

Objective:To compare the different amount of bacterial colonies adhered on silk and catgut sutures in odontectomy patient at Dr. Pirngadi Hospital from May to July 2018.Material and Methods:This is laboratory experimental study with a “post-test only control group†design which means the threads that have been remove on 7th day postoperative and would be transferred to Microbiology Laboratory, Faculty of Mathematic and Science, Universitas Sumatera Utara . Bacterial colony counter were used to count the amount of bacteria colony on a petri dish containing PCA medium after the colonization was diluted to 10-7 mL. The number of patients studied were 26 people, therefore 13 people used silk sutures and 13 people used catgut sutures.Results:The results were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney Test. There was no significant difference (p> 0.05) between the amount of bacterial colonies adherence on silk and catgut sutures. The mean bacterial colony on silk sutures are 207.38±173.605 x107 CFU/mL, meanwhile on catgut sutures are 115.15±158.905 x107 CFU/mL. Conclusion:Catgut suture could minimalize bacterial colonization better than silk suture. 
Section

References

  1. Sala-Pérez S, López-Ramirez M, Quinteros-Borgarello M,
  2. et al. Antibacterial suture vs silk for the surgical removal
  3. of impacted lower third molars. A randomized clinical
  4. study. Med Oral Patol Cir Btikal 2016;21: 95-102.
  5. Venema S, Abbas F, van de Belt-Gritter B, et al. In vitro
  6. oral biofilm formation on triclosan-coated suture in the
  7. absence and presence of additional antiplaque treatment.
  8. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011: 1-6.
  9. Hupp J R, Ellis E, Tucker MR. Contemporary oral and
  10. maxillofacial surgery. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier;
  11. p. 43-53, 73-74, 144-150, 159-165.
  12. Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, et al. Microbial adherence
  13. on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing
  14. dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 1503-1507.
  15. Kruthi N, Rajasekhar G, Anuradha B, et al. Polyglactin
  16. vs. triclosan coated polyglactin 910 in oral surgery:
  17. a comparative in vivo study. Dentistry 2014: 267-270.
  18. Varma S, Abufanas S, Ali M, et al. Comparison
  19. of wicking effect of different sutures: An in vitro study.
  20. Int J Curr Res 2017;9: 61469-61472.
  21. SenGupta M, Banerjee D, Sengupta M, et al. In vitro
  22. efficacy of triclosan coated polyglcation 910 suture against
  23. common bacterial pathogen causing surgical site infection.
  24. Int J Infect Control 2014: 1-6.
  25. De-Castro OCN, Lobo LA, Iorio NLP, et al. Oral
  26. bacteria adherence to suture threads: An in vitro study.
  27. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015: 1-5.
  28. Javed F, Al-Askar M, Almas K, et al. Tissue
  29. reaction to various suture materials used in oral surgical
  30. intervention. ISRN Dent 2012: 1-6.
  31. Dhom J, Bloes DA, Peschel A, et al. Bacterial adhesion
  32. to suture material in contaminated wound model:
  33. Comparison of monofilament, braided and barbed sutures.
  34. J Orthop Res 2017;35: 925-933.
  35. Geiger D, Debus ES, Ziegler UE, et al. Capillary
  36. activity of surgical sutures and suture-dependent bacterial
  37. transport: a qualitative study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2005;6:
  38. -383.
  39. Syaflida R, Rusdy H, Riza A, et al. Comparison of wound
  40. healing time post odontectomy surgery using silk and
  41. catgut sutures in Pirngadi Hospital. J Dentomaxillofac Sci
  42. ;4: 32-35.

How to Cite

Syaflida, R., Hanafiah, O. A., Riza, A., & Fauzie, M. R. (2021). Comparison of bacterial colonies adherence on silk and catgut sutures in odontectomy patient at Dr. Pirngadi Hospital. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science, 6(3), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v0i0.842

HTML
233

Total
155

Share

Search Panel

Downloads

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Rahmi Syaflida

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

> >>