Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between tensile characteristics of various suture materials with two suture techniques: an in vitro study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The first objective of the present study was to evaluate the tensile strength and elongation to failure of commonly used suture materials in oral surgery. As a secondary objective, it was aimed to make a comparison between two different suture techniques within the same suture materials.

Materials and methods

Eight different suture materials with 3-0 gauge (silk, polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polyglactin 910, polyglycolic acid, poliglecaprone 25, polydioxanone) underwent tensile testing for maximum load of failure and elongation rate. All strands were tied by one investigator on the experimental platform using the surgeon’s knot plus additional square knots in both simple suture and horizontal mattress suture techniques. Prepared specimens were examined using a microtensile testing device before (baseline) and after 3, 7, and 14 days’ immersion in artificial saliva.

Results

Statistical analysis of the current study revealed that the tensile strength for polyglycolic acid, polyglactin 910, polypropylene, and silk sutures was significantly lower at day 3 than at the baseline. By day 14, polyglycolic acid and polyglactin 910 showed a significant reduction in tensile strength for both techniques. While polydioxanone obtained the highest tensile strength and elongation values in both techniques, polytetrafluoroethylene showed the most stable tensile strength even with the lowest value. Tensile strength in simple suture techniques was almost twice than that of horizontal mattress suture technique for each specimen.

Conclusions

Polyglycolic acid and polyglactin 910 were considerably sensitive to immersion time. Polydioxanone demonstrated optimum performance during each immersion period among the tested materials, whereas polytetrafluoroethylene was the most stable.

Clinical relevance

The selection of the most proper suture material remains challenging for clinicians. The present study provides relevant information for clinicians to guide them in their choice of the suitable material. In this context, clinicians can benefit from the use of polydioxanone for its high tensile strength regardless of the suture technique used, whereas polytetrafluoroethylene shows a long-term stability. The strength and stability differences among suture materials and techniques need to be considered before making an informed decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V (2009) The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res 37:1528–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323000903700531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkhardt R (2000) Lang NP (2015) Influence of suturing on wound healing. Periodontol 68:270–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khiste SV, Ranganath V, Nichani AS (2013) Evaluation of tensile strength of surgical synthetic absorbable suture materials: an in vitro study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43:130–135. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2013.43.3.130

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bagheri SC, Bell B, Khan HA (2011) Current therapy in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences

  5. Kim JS, Shin SI, Herr Y, Park JB, Kwon YH, Chung JH (2011) Tissue reactions to suture materials in the oral mucosa of beagle dogs. J Periodontal Implant Sci 41:185–191. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2011.41.4.185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chu CC (2013) Materials for absorbable and nonabsorbable surgical sutures. In Biotextiles as medical implants (pp. 275-334). Woodhead Publishing.

  7. Javed F, Al-Askar M, Almas K, Romanos GE, Al-Hezaimi K (2012) Tissue reactions to various suture materials used in oral surgical interventions. ISRN Dent 2012:762095. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/762095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Alsarhan M, Alnofaie H, Ateeq R, Almahdy A (2018) The effect of chlorhexidine and Listerine® mouthwashes on the tensile strength of selected absorbable sutures: an in vitro study. Biomed Res Int 2018:8531706. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8531706

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. von Fraunhofer JA, Storey RS, Stone IK, Masterson BJ (1985) Tensile strength of suture materials. Biomaterials 9:324–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vasanthan A, Satheesh K, Hoopes W, Lucaci P, Williams K, Rapley J (2009) Comparing suture strengths for clinical applications: a novel in vitro study. J Periodontol 80:618–624. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh S, Young A, McNaught CE (2017) The physiology of wound healing. Surgery (Oxford) 35:473–477. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2000.9.6.25994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Muffly TM, Kow N, Iqbal I, Barber MD (2011) Minimum number of throws needed for knot security. J Surg Educ 68:130–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson PC, Roberts AD, Hire JM, Mueller TL (2016) The effect of instrumentation on suture tensile strength and knot pullout strength of common suture materials. J Surg Educ 73:162–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung E, McPherson N, Grant A (2009) Tensile strength of absorbable suture materials: in vitro analysis of the effects of pH and bacteria. J Surg Educ 66:208–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.06.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Selvig KA, Biagiotti GR, Leknes KN, Wikesjo UM (1998) Oral tissue reactions to suture materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 18:474–487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abellán D, Nart J, Pascual A, Cohen RE, Sanz-Moliner JD (2016) Physical and mechanical evaluation of five suture materials on three knot configurations: an in vitro study. Polymers 8:147. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym8040147

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. González-Barnadas A, Camps-Font O, Espanya-Grifoll D, España-Tost A, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E (2017) In vitro tensile strength study on suturing technique and material. J Oral Implantol 43:169–174. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-16-00164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arce J, Palacios A, Alvítez-Temoche D, Mendoza-Azpur G, Romero-Tapia P, Mayta-Tovalino F (2019) Tensile strength of novel nonabsorbable PTFE (Teflon®) versus other suture materials: an in vitro study. Int J Dent 2019:7419708. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7419708

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim JC, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC (2007) Comparison of tensile and knot security properties of surgical sutures. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:2363–2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3114-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hughes SC, Stott PM, Hearnden AJ, Ripley LG (2007) A new and effective tension-band braided polyester suture technique for transverse patellar fracture fixation. Injury 38:212–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.07.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marturello DM, McFadden MS, Bennett RA, Ragetly GR, Horn G (2014) Knot security and tensile strength of suture materials. Vet Surg 43:73–79.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.12076.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Byrne M, Aly A (2019) The surgical suture. Aesthet Surg J 39:S67–S72. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liber-Kneć A, Łagan S (2016) The stress relaxation process in sutures tied with a surgeon's knot in a simulated biological environment. Polim Med 46:111–116. https://doi.org/10.17219/pim/68735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vieira AC, Vieira JC, Guedes RM, Marques AT (2010) Degradation and viscoelastic properties of PLA-PCL, PGA-PCL, PDO and PGA fibres. Mat Sci Forum 636:825–832. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.636-637.825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang CE, Zhang PH (2016) In vitro degradation behaviours of PDO monofilament and its intravascular stents with braided structure. Autex Res J 16:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/aut-2015-0031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abiri A, Paydar O, Tao A, LaRocca M, Liu K, Genovese B, Candler R, Grundfest WS, Dutson EP (2017) Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 31:3258–3270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5356-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Freudenberg S, Rewerk S, Kaess M, Weiss C, Dorn-Beinecke A, Post S (2004) Biodegradation of absorbable sutures in body fluids and pH buffers. Eur Surg Res 36:376–385. https://doi.org/10.1159/000081648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Naleway SE, Lear W, Kruzic JJ, Maughan CB (2015) Mechanical properties of suture materials in general and cutaneous surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 103:735–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Griffin TJ, Hur Y, Bu J (2011) Basic suture techniques for oral mucosa. Clin Adv Periodontics 1:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1902/cap.2011.110053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tullis JL, Kaiser K, Bergman KA, Becker M, Moore L, Mumtaz H, ... & Loveland, K. (2020). Influence of suture technique on ridge dimensions and keratinized tissue after alveolar ridge preservation: a pilot study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City)

  31. Chu CC, Kizil Z (1989) Qualitative-evaluation of stiffness of commercial suture materials. Surg Gynecol Obstet 168:233–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dang MC, Thacker JG, Hwang JCS, Rodeheaver GT, Melton SM, Edlich RF (1990) Some biomechanical considerations of polytetrafluoroethylene sutures. Arch Surg 125:647–650. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1990.01410170095020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. He W and Benson R (2017) Polymeric biomaterials. In Applied plastics engineering handbook (pp. 145-164). William Andrew Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-39040-8.00008-0

  34. Polykandriotis E, Besrour F, Arkudas A, Ruppe F, Zetzmann K, Braeuer L, Horch RE (2019) Flexor tendon repair with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) suture material. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:429–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-03105-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hertweck SP, von Fraunhofer JA, Masterson BJ (1988) Tensile characteristics of PTFE sutures. Biomaterials 9:457–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(88)90013-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Altinbas University, 34147, Istanbul, Turkey

    Aysegul Erten Taysi & Pinar Ercal

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Altinbas University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Soner Sismanoglu

Authors
  1. Aysegul Erten Taysi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pinar Ercal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soner Sismanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aysegul Erten Taysi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was required for this article since it does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent to participate

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taysi, A.E., Ercal, P. & Sismanoglu, S. Comparison between tensile characteristics of various suture materials with two suture techniques: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Invest 25, 6393–6401 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03943-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03943-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation