ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Suturing Techniques on Wound Healing and Patient-Centered Outcomes After Non-impacted Tooth Extraction: An Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuccessful wound closure after tooth extraction is important for postoperative healing and patient comfort. Different suturing techniques may influence tissue approximation, wound stability, postoperative inflammation, and patient-centered outcomes. The present study aimed to compare the effects of simple interrupted suturing (SIS), figure-of-eight suturing (F8S), and horizontal mattress suturing (HMS) on postoperative wound healing and patient-related clinical outcomes following routine non-impacted tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational cohort study included 150 participants requiring routine non-impacted tooth extraction, with 50 participants enrolled in each suturing group: SIS, F8S, and HMS. Group assignment was based on surgeon preference and patient choice. Soft tissue healing was assessed using the early wound healing score on postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 14. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain (assessed using the visual analog scale), edema, postoperative bleeding, wound dehiscence, suture handling time, and patient satisfaction. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23 (Released 2016; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States), with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). Early wound healing scores progressively improved over time in all groups. However, the HMS group had the highest healing scores, followed by the SIS group. On postoperative day 14, healing scores were 9.7 ± 0.4 for HMS, 9.6 ± 0.5 for SIS, and 8.9 ± 0.8 for F8S. On postoperative day 1, pain scores were highest in the F8S group (5.82 ± 1.41) compared with the SIS (4.25 ± 1.23) and HMS (3.98 ± 1.15) groups. Edema, postoperative bleeding, and wound dehiscence were also significantly greater in the F8S group (p < 0.05). Although F8S required the shortest handling time (52.1 ± 9.7 seconds), patient satisfaction was significantly lower compared with the other groups.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, SIS and HMS demonstrated superior postoperative healing and patient-centered outcomes compared with F8S following routine tooth extraction. HMS showed the most favorable healing profile, whereas F8S, despite requiring shorter operative time, was associated with inferior postoperative outcomes.
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.