ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Tensile Strength of Absorbable and Non-Absorbable Suture Materials Exposed to Different Toothpaste Solutions: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the tensile strength (TS) of absorbable and nonabsorbable suture materials after immersion in 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate. Materials and Methods: Six 4-0-gauge suture materials were used, namely silk (S), polypropylene (PP), polyamide 6 (PA6), polyglactin 910 (PG910), poliglecaprone 25 (PL25), and polydioxanone (PDX). A total of 540 suture materials were divided equally (90) into six groups and tested. These materials were divided into a nonimmersed condition (10) and two thermostatically controlled immersion media (40 each), using artificial saliva for the control group (CG) and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for the test group (TG). The specimens were tied to prefabricated rubber rods before immersion and removed at the testing timepoint. By using a universal testing machine (Instron 5566) with hooks attached, a hook-mounted specimen TS testing was performed on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 at a 10 mm/min crosshead speed until the material was stretched to failure, and the maximum TS was recorded in Newtons (N). The continuous variables were taken as the mean and standard deviation across the six study groups to assess the significance at Results: The suture material TS analysis showed that nonabsorbable suture materials maintained their TS throughout the study; silk exhibited different behaviors, decreasing in TS from baseline to day 1 and maintaining its TS until day 14. All absorbable suture materials decreased in TSs by day 14. The silk and PG910 samples in the TG performed significantly better than those in the CG. Conclusions: Prescribing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate as a postsurgical mouth rinse is safest when silk and PG910 are the optimal suture materials.
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.