Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39313600›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025

How well do antibacterial sutures control microbial colonization after oral surgery?

Omer Waleed Majid

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Omer Waleed MajidDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Mosul University, Mosul, Iraq. omerwaleedmajid@uomosul.edu.iq.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesA literature search was conducted through PubMed and Scopus databases to identify articles published from January 2013 to May 2023, using appropriate search terms. There were no language restrictions. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies and key peer-reviewed journals in oral surgery were manually searched for further relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Selection criteria targeted human clinical studies, including cohort studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, case reports, and case series that investigated the antimicrobial activity of antibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery. Studies were excluded if they were in vitro, ex vivo, or animal studies, as well as if they were non-research or pre-print articles. Two authors independently selected studies, resolving disagreements through discussion or a third expert reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data, including author, year, country, study design, sample size, population, intervention, control, surgery type, suture removal time, methodology, main results, and additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with input from a third reviewer. This study followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews.

resultsOut of 150 identified articles, 129 abstracts were reviewed after removing duplicates, and 10 full-text articles were screened, resulting in the inclusion of 5 studies published between 2014 and 2019. Three were RCTs, with one using a split-mouth design, involving 10 to 40 patients aged 18 to 60 years, primarily healthy. The sutures were mostly braided and coated with triclosan or chlorhexidine, while control groups used various non-coated sutures. Suture removal times ranged from 3 to 8 days. Postoperative rinses were advised in two studies, with one study not administering antibiotics and unclear antibiotic use in others. Three studies reported significantly reduced bacterial counts with antimicrobial-coated sutures compared to non-coated ones, while two studies found no significant differences. Triclosan-coated sutures generally showed greater antimicrobial activity, though results varied.

conclusionAntibacterial-coated sutures in oral surgery showed reduced bacterial retention compared to non-coated sutures. However, methodological variability, small sample sizes, and confounding factors limit the generalizability and reliability of these findings. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed for more definitive conclusions. While antibacterial-coated sutures show promise in reducing microbial colonization and potentially improving surgical outcomes, their cost-effectiveness relative to non-coated sutures should be evaluated in larger clinical trials.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsOral Surgical ProceduresSurgical Wound InfectionSuturesHumansAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.