ArticleCureus2023
Microbiological Evaluation of Four Different Suture Materials Used for the Surgical Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molars: A Single-Center Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to minimize periodontal defect distal to second molar after mandibular third molar surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Investigation of antibiotic release from amoxicillin- and clindamycin-impregnated silk and Vicryl suture materials: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Microbiological Analysis of Bacterial Plaque on Various Suture Types Used in Third Molar Surgical Extraction: a Systematic Review.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Sutures play a crucial role in the postoperative healing process, as they help approximate wound edges, promote hemostasis, and support tissue healing. The oral cavity harbors a diverse microbial population, and oral surgical procedures can introduce potential pathogens into the surgical site. Understanding the impact of suture material on wound infection rates and the colonization of potentially harmful microorganisms is vital for improving patient outcomes. This study was aimed to evaluate and compare the microbiological properties of prolene, vicryl plus, monocryl, and silk sutures used after the surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. Materials and methods A total of 40 patients requiring surgical extraction of impacted lower third molars were assigned to four groups: prolene, vicryl plus, monocryl, and silk sutures. Surgical extraction of impacted tooth was done, and wound was sutured with the abovementioned four different materials in four groups, respectively. After seven days, the sutures were removed and sent to the microbiology lab for colony count assessment. Total microbial colony count, streptococcus count, and lactobacillus count were assessed. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (Released 2015; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States) with p-values less than 0.05 considered as statistically significant. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey test were done to compare intergroup relations. Results The microbiological evaluation of the sutures revealed significant differences in bacterial colonization among the four groups. More bacterial quantities were found in the silk group followed by the monocryl, vicryl plus, and prolene groups in the descending order. Prolene demonstrated the lowest incidence of bacterial growth (p<0.001) compared to vicryl plus, monocryl, and silk sutures. Bacterial colony count was highest in the silk group. The predominant bacterial species found in all groups were
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.