Microbiological Analysis of Bacterial Plaque on Various Suture Types Used in Third Molar Surgical Extraction: a Systematic Review

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess how different types of surgical sutures impact the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque in patients undergoing impacted third molar teeth removal surgery.

Material and Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Electronic literature searches were conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science databases, employing electronic databases and hand searches. Keywords such as “suture”, “third molar”, “wisdom teeth”, “impacted teeth”, “surgical extraction” were used in various combinations with Boolean operators. A 10-year filter, English language, and full-text access filter were applied. The research spanned the period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2025, and incorporated studies on humans published in English.

Results: The systematic literature review included 11 studies with 649 suture samples from 360 patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery. Twenty-five suture types were used, with silk being the most common but often accumulating the highest bacterial load. Prolene^® and antibacterial sutures, like Monocryl^® Plus, showed significantly lower bacterial colonization.

Conclusions: Sutures after third molar surgery can promote bacterial attachment, potentially leading to infections that impact wound healing. The evidence suggests that monofilament, synthetic, and antibacterial-coated sutures are preferable for reducing bacterial colonization, whereas multifilament silk sutures should be avoided when possible due to their high bacterial retention.

J Oral Maxillofac Res 2025;16(2):e3

doi: 10.5037/jomr.2025.16203

Accepted for publication: 29 June 2025

Keywords: bacteria; impacted teeth; microbiology; oral surgery; sutures; third molar.

INTRODUCTION

Surgical manipulations performed in the oral cavity often require wound closure. Suturing remains the most commonly used conventional method in the oral and maxillofacial region [1]. The medical field offers various types of suture materials, each suited for different applications [1,2]. Research shows that suturing technique influences healing after oral surgical interventions [3-5]. In addition, used suture material also impacts surgical outcomes in third molar surgery [6-8]. The type of suture material used can significantly affect microbial colonization, which may affect the wound healing process and increase the risk of infection after surgery [9,10].

Bacterial growth continues to present a significant challenge in surgical practice [11]. Moreover, bacterial colonization and tissue reactions, influenced by the suture’s surface properties, can further complicate healing, particularly in dentoalveolar surgery, where material choice is always critical to minimizing complications and promoting recovery [12-14].

Sutures used after third molar surgery provides a surface for bacterial attachment, which can trigger an inflammatory response. Due to their ability to adhere to sutures, bacteria can act as a source of odontogenic infections [15,16]. In the wound healing process, infections, along with other factors, play a crucial role [17]. The incidence of postoperative infections after third molar removal is estimated to range from 1.94% to 42.6% [18-22].

Innovations in suturing materials have significantly reduced post-surgical complications and infections [23-25]. Antibacterial sutures represent a significant milestone in the advancement of sutures with enhanced properties [26]. In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Coated Vicryl^® Plus (Ethicon, Inc. - Johnson & Johnson MedTech Co.; Somerville, New Jersey, USA), the first antibacterial (polyglactin 910) synthetic absorbable suture, to reduce infection risk [27]. Nowadays, new suture technologies like antimicrobial, drug-releasing, stem cell-infused, and electronic sutures are being actively researched [28]. Novel sutures are being developed with enhanced properties, including antimicrobial agents [29], bioactive molecules like DNA [30], drugs [28], growth factors [31], antibodies [32], silver [33], and proteins [34]. Braided sutures can trap bacteria, to prevent this, they can be coated with antibiotics like tetracycline or levofloxacin hydrochloride, which effectively combats Escherichia coli [35,36]. Levofloxacin-loaded sutures, made from hydrophilic biocompatible polymers, help inhibit Staphylococcus epidermidis growth [37]. Sutures coated with totarol show antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus [38]. Triclosan-coated polyglactin 910 sutures were evaluated for their effectiveness in stopping the growth of wild-type and methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis [39]. Sutures treated with K21, a quaternary ammonium compound demonstrated antimicrobial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis and Enterococcus faecalis, with effectiveness varying by suture type [40]. Silk and polyglycolic acid (PGA) sutures coated with hyaluronic acid showed increased resistance to S. aureus and E. coli [41]. The polydioxanone sutures were the least prone to E. coli and S. aureus attachment [42]. AgNP-coated silk sutures exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans and S. aureus [43].

Understanding suture materials and its properties can help enhance clinical protocols, minimize infection risks, and improve patient recovery outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to assess how different types of surgical sutures impact the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque in patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [44].

The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (registration number: CRD420251010120).

The protocol can be accessed at: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251010120

Focus question

The focus question was developed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework: patients undergoing impacted third molar removal surgery (P), use of different types of surgical sutures (I), comparison between various types of sutures (C), and microbiological analysis of bacterial plaque (O).

The formulated focus question was: “How do different types of surgical sutures influence the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque following impacted third molar removal?”

Table 1 outlines the development of the focus question based on the PICO framework.

Information sources

The systematic electronic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Web of Science databases, employing both electronic databases and hand searches.

Search

As per PRISMA guidelines, resource databases were searched using advanced methods. Keywords such as “suture,” “third molar,” “wisdom teeth,” “impacted teeth,” “surgical extraction” were used in various combinations with boolean operators (AND, OR) to conduct online search. A 10-year filter, English language, and full-text access filter were applied to all searches. The research spanned the period from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2025, and incorporated studies on humans published in English.

Selection of studies

The article titles were independently screened by two reviewers (A.B. and V.K.) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text analysis was performed for articles that met the eligibility criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third investigator (J.S.M.).

Types of publication

The systematic literature review included all human randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and quantitative pilot studies that examined how different types of surgical sutures influence the microbiological composition of bacterial plaque after impacted third molar removal.

Types of studies

In this review were included studies published from January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2025. The systematic literature review included studies on humans published in the English language. Letters, editorials, meta-analyses, systematic literature reviews, scoping reviews, conference abstracts, guidelines, PhD theses, case reports, and in vitro studies were excluded.

Types of participants

This systematic literature review assessed patients who underwent impacted third molar removal surgery and where sutures were used.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All studies met the following inclusion criteria:

• Studies written in English and published within the last 10 years.

• Studies conducted on patients (male and female, ≥ 16 years old) diagnosed with impacted third molars.

• Studies involving patients who underwent impacted third molar removal surgery and where sutures were used.

The following articles were excluded based on the following criteria:

• Studies involving patients who underwent various oral surgical interventions, including the surgical removal of teeth other than third molars, as well as other oral surgical procedures unrelated to tooth extractions.

• Studies in which additional materials were placed on or around the sutures or within the surgical site.

• Studies involving patients who underwent impacted third molar removal surgery and where sutures were not used.

• Inaccessible relevant data, such as the inability to contact the authors for any reason.

• Studies that investigate only a single suture type without including any comparative analysis.

Sequential search strategy

The selection process involved four stages: (1) selection based on the relevance of the title, (2) duplicate removal, (3) assessment of abstract relevance, and (4) full-text analysis. Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two authors (A.B. and V.K.), followed by a thorough full-text evaluation based on eligibility criteria. Reviewers were calibrated by calculating Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) values to ensure inter-rater reliability of abstracts and titles on a sample of 10% of publications.

Rayyan^® (Qatar Computing Research Institute; HBKU, Doha, Qatar [www.rayyan.ai]) was used for title and abstract screenings.

Data extraction

The data were independently collected from the studies based on the review’s aims and themes.

Data items

Data was gathered from the included studies and classified into the following categories:

• “Authors (publication year)” - provided details of the author and publication year.

• “Study type” - specified the type of the study.

• “Number of patients” - clarified the number of patients.

• “Suture samples” - provided details of the sutures used.

• “Results” - highlighted main results from the studies.

Risk of bias assessment within studies

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for randomized controlled studies (Table 2), JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for cohort studies (Table 3), and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for quasi-experimental studies (Table 4) were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies (https://joannabriggs.org/). “Yes“, “no“, “unclear“, or “not applicable“ was assigned to each criterion. Methodological quality was assessed as follows: high risk of bias for studies with 49% or fewer positive responses, moderate risk of bias for 50 to 69%, and low risk of bias for more than 70%.

Statistical analysis

Article management was conducted using Mendeley^® Reference Manager version 2.85.0 (Elsevier; London, UK [www.mendeley.com]). The level of agreement between the two raters in selecting abstracts and studies to be read in full-text were measured using Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ). Due to the considerable diversity of the data, it was decided that a quantitative analysis via meta-analysis could not be conducted.

RESULTS

Study selection

The initial database search resulted in a total of 1370 records. After removing duplicates (n = 289) and non-relevant titles and abstracts (n = 1055), 26 full-text articles remained for eligibility assessment. Of these, 15 articles were excluded based on exclusion criteria. A total of 11 studies were included in the systematic review. The level of agreement between the two authors (A.B. and V.K.) in selecting abstracts were measured at κ = 0.88. Figure 1 provides an overview of the article selection process, illustrated through the PRISMA flow diagram.

Study exclusion

The rationale for excluding 15 studies [45-59] is listed in Table 5. Articles were excluded for the following reasons 4 in vitro studies [49,55,57,58]; 1 scoping review [45]; 1 study in which the extracted teeth were not third molars [46]; 7 studies describing oral surgical procedures unrelated to tooth extractions [47,48,50,51,53,54,56]; 1 study in which additional materials were placed on or around the sutures or within the surgical site [52] and 1 study that investigated only a single suture group and did not include a comparative analysis [59].

Quality assessment of the included studies

The quality of the included studies is summarized in the Tables 6, 7, and 8. All studies were characterized as high quality according to the JBI score. Seven randomized controlled trials [9,10,60-64] had a score of ≥ 10, three cohort studies [65-67] had a mean score of ≥ 8, and one quasi-experimental study [68] was characterized 9.

Study characteristics

Eleven publications were included in the systematic literature review (Table 9). Seven publications [9,10,60-64] were randomized controlled trials, three publications [65-67] were cohort studies, and one publication [68] was a quasi-experimental study. A total of 649 suture samples from 360 patients (aged 16 to 75) were included in the results.

The review of third molars extraction and wound suturing in these studies showed that, initially, all procedures were performed correctly. All the selected articles reported microbiological contamination on suture samples that were removed seven days post-surgery. There were used 25 different kinds of sutures. The most commonly used suture was silk.

All patients were locally anesthetized before the procedure. The mucoperiosteal flap was raised, osteotomy was done, and the tooth was elevated, luxated, and removed. After achieving haemostasis, each patient’s flap was closed using different suture materials. The suture removal was done by the surgeon following the standard protocol under sterile conditions. Suture removal was done using separate sterile instruments and sutures were collected for microbiological examination.

In four studies [9,10,64,68] a postoperative antibiotic regimen was prescribed; in one study [67] antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. In three studies [60,65,68] patients were instructed not to use any antiseptic solutions, while in two studies [64,67] they were advised to rinse with physiological saline three times a day for seven days, and in three studies [9,10,63] they were instructed to use chlorhexidine mouthwash three times daily for seven days.

In all studies, microbiological analysis was conducted in a laboratory setting using various methods. Four studies [60,62,63,65] utilized Gram staining, while six studies [10,60,61,63-65] employed microscopy techniques, including scanning electron microscopy, light microscopy, and optical microscopy. Additionally, six studies [60,64-68] included colony forming units (CFUs) measurements.

Silk suture and its bacterial retention

Silk contamination between other independent analysed sutures

Six out of seven studies that examined silk separately from other suture materials [61,63-68]. Repeated result highlights that silk is more prone to microbial build up compared to other suture materials: in five studies it exhibited highest CFU scores [64-67,68], in one study researchers found significantly higher gene copy number of bacteria on silk [61], in another silk had the highest level of retention of cocci and bacilli (P = 0.01) [63].

Silk as a multifilament and non-absorbable suture

Silk, as a multifilament and non-absorbable suture, was evaluated in three studies, all of which concluded that it had a higher bacterial load than monofilament and absorbable sutures: Dragovic et al. [10] (P = 0.000), Yaman et al. [9] (P < 0.001), Dragović et al. (P = 0.005) [61]. This suggests that the structural composition of silk, which consists of multiple intertwined filaments, provides a more favourable environment for bacterial adhesion and colonization.

Vicryl^® Plus comparison with various suture materials

Comparison between Vicryl^® and Vicryl^® Plus

Sh et al. [60] compared the bacterial load of Vicryl^® and Vicryl^® Plus (Ethicon, Inc. - Johnson & Johnson MedTech Co.) in a clinical study. The study results indicated that Vicryl^® Plus significantly reduced bacterial colonization. The total bacterial count decreased in 21 of 27 patients (77.78%), while Lactobacillus levels declined in 20 of 27 patients (74.07%), with statistical significance (P = 0.005 and P = 0.019, respectively).

Findings indicate that Vicryl^® Plus is superior to conventional Vicryl^® sutures in reducing bacterial contamination, highlighting its enhanced antibacterial activity.

Comparison with Ethicon^® Prolene^®

However, Krishna et al. [65] conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the microbiological properties of Ethicon^® Prolene^®, Monocryl^®, Perma-Hand^® silk, and Vicryl^® Plus sutures (Ethicon, Inc. - Johnson & Johnson MedTech Co.). The findings indicated that among the tested suture materials, Prolene^® exhibited the lowest CFU count (P = 0.001), suggesting its superior resistance to bacterial adherence and colonization compared to the other sutures examined.

The findings suggest that Prolene^® outperforms Vicryl^® Plus in minimizing bacterial adherence, despite the antimicrobial characteristics of Vicryl^® Plus.

Ethicon^® Monocryl^® Plus and its antibacterial effect

Two studies by Sala-Pérez et al. [64] and Anand et al. [67] compared Ethicon^® Perma-Hand^® silk to Monocryl^® Plus (Ethicon, Inc. - Johnson & Johnson MedTech Co.), a suture developed with antibacterial properties.

Sala-Pérez et al. [64] observed that after three days, bacterial counts were significantly lower on Monocryl^® Plus compared to Perma-Hand^® silk (P < 0.001), with reductions in Streptococcus viridans (P = 0.004), Neisseria spp. (P = 0.001), Veillonella spp. (P = 0.043), and Lactobacillus spp. (P = 0.043). By day seven, the bacterial differences between Perma-Hand^® silk and Monocryl^® Plus had decreased, however, Monocryl^® Plus continued to exhibit significantly lower bacterial retention (P = 0.033).

Anand et al. [67] provided further evidence that Monocryl^® Plus exhibited a significantly lower bacterial load across nearly all examined species. Statistical analysis confirmed a highly significant reduction in bacterial presence within the Monocryl^® Plus group (P = 0.000).

These findings establish that Monocryl^® Plus is more resistant to bacterial colonization than silk, supporting its preference in oral surgeries where infection control is essential.

Multifilament and monofilament sutures

Bacterial load comparison

Yaman et al. [9] analysed 10 different suture materials. Those were monofilament sutures: polydioxanone, poly-glycolic acid-cocaprolactone, polypropylene, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyamide, polytetrafluoroethylene polymer, and multifilament sutures: poly-glycolide-colactide, fast absorbable poly-glycolide-colactide, silk, polyester.

Findings highlighted that bacterial accumulation was notably greater in multifilament sutures compared to monofilament sutures (P < 0.001).

Dragović et al. [61] reaffirmed that multifilament sutures exhibit greater dental plaque accumulation than monofilament sutures (2.33E + 10 ± 2.60E + 10SD).

Silk as a multifilament suture

Further analysis across 10 sources provided strong confirmation that silk, as a multifilament suture, exhibited consistently high bacterial retention [9,10,61-68]. Nine out of 10 studies demonstrated greater bacterial load on silk compared to other suture materials, reinforcing concerns regarding its susceptibility to microbial colonization. This consistent trend suggests that the structural properties of silk sutures may contribute to an environment conducive to pathogen adherence.

Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures

Yalçın et al. [62] examined the bacterial load on absorbable (PGA, polyglycolide-co-lactide) and non-absorbable (silk, polyester) sutures. The results indicated that Corynebacterium spp. was the most frequently found aerobic strain, detected in 60% of silk samples. Peptostreptococcus spp., the most frequent anaerobic strain, was observed in 12 of 60 samples (20%), with the highest concentration in silk and polyglycolide-co-lactide sutures (Boz Tibbi Malzeme A.S; Ankara, Turkey) (26.7%).

This suggests that silk, as a non-absorbable multifilament suture, is highly susceptible to bacterial contamination.

DISCUSSION

Summary of evidence

This systematic literature review is based on the analysis of 11 publications. Despite differences in microbiological analysis methods, all studies indicate a link between biofilm formation and various suture materials.

Following third molar surgery, sutures can provide a surface for bacterial adhesion, which may contribute to the development of an inflammatory response [16]. This response can be linked to several factors, including trauma caused by needle insertion, the physical presence of sutures within the extraction site that may irritate surrounding tissues, and the accumulation of bacterial plaque on the suture material [69]. It has been estimated that as few as 100 CFU of bacteria on conventional sutures, such as natural black silk, can be enough to induce a surgical site infection [70].

Sutures can be classified based on their origin, biological behaviour, and structure [71]. They are either natural or synthetic. Natural sutures include those of animal (e.g., catgut, silk), plant (e.g., linen, cotton), and mineral (e.g., metals) origins, while synthetic sutures are made from materials like glycolic acid, lactic acid, nylon, polyesters, and polypropylene. Sutures are further divided into absorbable and non-absorbable types based on their ability to degrade. Absorbable sutures (e.g., catgut, collagen, glycolic acid) degrade within 60 days, while non-absorbable sutures (e.g., silk, cotton, nylon, polytetrafluoroethylene) remain in the body. Structurally, sutures can be monofilament, multifilament, or pseudo-monofilament. Absorption of natural sutures occurs via lymphocytes and macrophages, while synthetic sutures degrade through hydrolytic scission of their polymer chains [15,17]

Silk from Bombyx mori has been used as a biomedical suture material for centuries [72]. Silk is a braided, siliconized protein suture from silk worms, known for its excellent handling, elasticity, low cost, and knot security. On the other hand, it can collect bacteria and fluids (the wick effect), leading to a higher risk of infection and inflammation [61,71]. In the current review it was the most regularly used suture material. In this review, silk consistently demonstrated the highest bacterial load compared to others, supporting previous research that identifies multifilament and non-absorbable sutures as more susceptible to microbial adhesion than monofilament and absorbable alternatives [9,10,61-68].

A study by Yalçın et al. [62] found that on the nonresorbable sutures were the biggest amount of aerobic bacteria, while anaerobic bacteria was found on both absorbable and nonresorbable samples. The authors also recommends to remove any kind of suture as soon as possible, regardless of whether they are absorbable since all materials can become reservoirs for oral pathogens. In a study by Sala-Pérez [64] absorbable Monocryl^® Plus resulted in a reduced count for nearly all isolated bacterial species. Anand et al. [67] also reported that nonresorbable silk exhibited a higher level of microbial colonization compared to absorbable Monocryl^®. Additional literature only confirms that nonresorbable sutures tend to harbor more bacteria than absorbable types, with facultative anaerobic bacterial counts reported to be nearly twice as high [13,74].

A key observation across multiple studies included in this review is that monofilament sutures harbor fewer bacteria than multifilament sutures. This supports previous literature claiming that the smooth surface of monofilament sutures inhibits bacterial adherence, while the braided structure of multifilament sutures should be avoided in contaminated wounds, as they can trap bacteria and lead to infection [71]. Notably, the studies by Yaman et al. [9] and Dragovic et al. [10] reported a statistically significant difference in bacterial load, with multifilament sutures accumulating more plaque than monofilament sutures (P = 0.000 and P < 0.001, respectively). These findings confirm the role of surface topography in microbial adhesion.

Among monofilament sutures, polyamide, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene difluoride showed the lowest bacterial accumulation. This result is consistent with earlier studies suggesting that synthetic, non-braided materials resist bacterial colonization better than their multifilament counterparts [9,10]. Literature supports these findings, as monofilaments (single-strand fibers) have a smooth surface that resists microorganism harbouring, resulting in a low inflammatory response [25]. On the other hand, poly-glycolide-colactide sutures exhibited the highest microbial load among the examined monofilaments, possibly due to their biodegradable properties, which may contribute to bacterial retention and proliferation [9].

This review also highlights the antimicrobial benefits of antibacterial-coated sutures, particularly Monocryl^® Plus and Vicryl^® Plus. Triclosan is a bacteriostatic antiseptic that, at low concentrations, inhibits many nonsporulating gram-positive and gram-negative oral bacteria, with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) around 0.001 to 7.8 μg/ml [74]. Previously mentioned sutures significantly reduced bacterial CFU compared to non-coated alternatives, with Vicryl^® Plus decreasing bacterial load by 77.78% in one study (P = 0.005) [60]. This supports the hypothesis that antibacterial-coated sutures can play a crucial role in minimizing post-surgical infections, as previously documented in the literature [61,62,64].

Limitations

This study has certain limitations that need to be addressed. In some of the analysed studies, antibiotic therapy was administered during the perioperative period, while others recommended antiseptic mouthwashes as part of the postoperative protocol. Although all included studies involved impacted third molars, variations in position, depth, angulation, and classification led to differences in surgical approaches and individualized suturing techniques. Additionally, the establishment and assessment of microbiological parameters varied among several studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that monofilament, synthetic, and antibacterial-coated sutures are preferable for reducing bacterial colonization, whereas multifilament silk sutures should be avoided when possible due to their high bacterial retention.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

All authors confirm that they have not received any financial or non-financial support from any organization for the submitted work. The authors also confirm that no other relationships or activities exist that could have influenced the submitted work.

REFERENCES

1. Pogrel MA, Kahnberg KE, Andersson L, editors. Essentials of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell; 2014. p. 48-59.
2. Davis B, Smith KD. Oral Surgery Suturing. 2023 May 29. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.
   [Medline: 34283455]
3. Baig FAH, Beniwal SK, Samir PV, Venkateshwar G, Singh M, Pendyala SK. Evlaution of Different Suturing Techniques in Deep Third Molar Surgery: An Original Research. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Jul;16(Suppl 3):S2658-S2660.
   [Medline: 39346242] [PMC free article: 11426757] [doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_401_24]
4. Baloch B, Channar KA, Shah SAR, Memon S, Rehman SU, Hamid S, Shams S. Comparison of Pain, Facial Swelling and Mouth Opening of Single Versus Multiple Suture Technique After Third Molar Extraction. Pakistan J Health Sci.2024 Aug;5(8):225-9.
   [doi: 10.54393/pjhs.v5i08.1727]
5. Sen A, Dhupar V, Akkara F. Analysing inflammatory responses after mandibular third molar extraction: a comparison of suture-less and multiple suture techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Dec;28(4):1587-1594.
   [Medline: 39117914] [doi: 10.1007/s10006-024-01287-2]
6. Dilan OZ, Levent C, Volkan K, Mehmet G, Abdurrahman G, Mohammad A, Anıl Ö. Evaluation of the effects of silk and polyethylene terephthalate sutures on postoperative complications in impacted lower third molar surgery. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2023 Oct 16;34(11):51.
   [Medline: 37843683] [PMC free article: 10579107] [doi: 10.1007/s10856-023-06756-w]
7. Orhan ZD, Ciğerim L. Evaluation of the Effect of Polybutester and Polypropylene Sutures on Complications after Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery. Appl Sci. 2024 Feb;14(4):1448.
   [doi: 10.3390/app14041448]
8. Oladega AA, James O, Adeyemo WL. Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive or silk suture for closure of surgical wound following removal of an impacted mandibular third molar: A randomized controlled study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg.2019 Jan;47(1):93-98.
   [Medline: 30501926] [doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2018.10.018]
9. Yaman D, Paksoy T, Ustaoğlu G, Demirci M. Evaluation of Bacterial Colonization and Clinical Properties of Different Suture Materials in Dentoalveoler Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Feb;80(2):313-326.
   [Medline: 34673005] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2021.09.014]
10. Dragovic M, Pejovic M, Stepic J, Colic S, Dozic B, Dragovic S, Lazarevic M, Nikolic N, Milasin J, Milicic B. Comparison of four different suture materials in respect to oral wound healing, microbial colonization, tissue reaction and clinical features-randomized clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Apr;24(4):1527-1541.
    [Medline: 31342245] [doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03034-4]
11. Burkhardt R, Lang NP. Influence of suturing on wound healing. Periodontol 2000. 2015 Jun;68(1):270-81.
    [Medline: 25867989] [doi: 10.1111/prd.12078]
12. Kurtzman GM, Silverstein LH, Shatz PC, Kurtzman D. Suturing for surgical success. Dent Today. 2005 Oct;24(10):96-102; quiz 103.
    [Medline: 16277068]
13. Banche G, Roana J, Mandras N, Amasio M, Gallesio C, Allizond V, Angeretti A, Tullio V, Cuffini AM. Microbial adherence on various intraoral suture materials in patients undergoing dental surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Aug;65(8):1503-7.
    [Medline: 17656275] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.10.066]
14. Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of Material Properties on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation. J Dent Res.2015 Aug;94(8):1027-34.
    [Medline: 26001706] [doi: 10.1177/0022034515587690]
15. Minozzi F, Bollero P, Unfer V, Dolci A, Galli M. The sutures in dentistry. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci.2009 May-Jun;13(3):217-26.
    [Medline: 19673173]
16. Leknes KN, Selvig KA, Bøe OE, Wikesjö UM. Tissue reactions to sutures in the presence and absence of anti-infective therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Feb;32(2):130-8.
    [Medline: 15691341] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00647.x]
17. Azmat CE, Council M. Wound Closure Techniques. 2023 Jun 26. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.
    [Medline: 29262163]
18. Sukegawa S, Yokota K, Kanno T, Manabe Y, Sukegawa-Takahashi Y, Masui M, Furuki Y. What are the risk factors for postoperative infections of third molar extraction surgery: A retrospective clinical study? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 Jan 1;24(1):e123-e129.
    [Medline: 30573720] [PMC free article: 6344007] [doi: 10.4317/medoral.22556]
19. Menon RK, Kar Yan L, Gopinath D, Botelho MG. Is there a need for postoperative antibiotics after third molar surgery? A 5-year retrospective study. J Investig Clin Dent. 2019 Nov;10(4):e12460.
    [Medline: 31608608] [doi: 10.1111/jicd.12460]
20. Christiaens I, Reychler H. Complications après extraction de dents de sagesse. Etude retrospective de 1 213 cas [Complications after third molar extractions: retrospective analysis of 1,213 teeth]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac.2002 Nov;103(5):269-74.
    [Medline: 12461461]
21. Blondeau F, Daniel NG. Extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: postoperative complications and their risk factors. J Can Dent Assoc. 2007 May;73(4):325.
    [Medline: 17484797]
22. Barbosa-Rebellato NL, Thomé AC, Costa-Maciel C, Oliveira J, Scariot R. Factors associated with complications of removal of third molars: a transversal study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 May 1;16(3):e376-80.
    [Medline: 21196877] [doi: 10.4317/medoral.16.e376]
23. Li H, Wang Z, Robledo-Lara JA, He J, Huang Y, Cheng F. Antimicrobial Surgical Sutures: Fabrication and Application of Infection Prevention and Wound Healing. Fibers Polym. 2021 Sep 19;22(9):2355-67.
    [[doi: 10.1007/s12221-021-0026-x]
24. Li Y, Meng Q, Chen S, Ling P, Kuss MA, Duan B, Wu S. Advances, challenges, and prospects for surgical suture materials. Acta Biomater. 2023 Sep 15;168:78-112.
    [Medline: 37516417] [doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.07.041]
25. Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, Mohan L, Morsi YY, Manivasagam G. Suture materials - Current and emerging trends.J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016 Jun;104(6):1544-59.
    [Medline: 26860644] [doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35683]
26. Hoshino S, Yoshida Y, Tanimura S, Yamauchi Y, Noritomi T, Yamashita Y. A study of the efficacy of antibacterial sutures for surgical site infection: a retrospective controlled trial. Int Surg. 2013 Apr-Jun;98(2):129-32.
    [Medline: 23701147] [PMC free article: 3723176] [doi: 10.9738/CC179]
27. Ming X, Nichols M, Rothenburger S. In vivo antibacterial efficacy of MONOCRYL plus antibacterial suture (Poliglecaprone 25 with triclosan). Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2007 Apr;8(2):209-14.
    [Medline: 17437366] [doi: 10.1089/sur.2006.004]
28. Arora A, Aggarwal G, Chander J, Maman P, Nagpal M. Drug eluting sutures: A recent update. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2019 Jul;9(7):111-23.
    [doi: 10.7324/JAPS.2019.90716]
29. Leaper D, McBain AJ, Kramer A, Assadian O, Sanchez JL, Lumio J, Kiernan M. Healthcare associated infection: novel strategies and antimicrobial implants to prevent surgical site infection. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Sep;92(6):453-8.
    [Medline: 20819330] [PMC free article: 3182781] [doi: 10.1308/003588410X12699663905276]
30. Labhasetwar V, Bonadio J, Goldstein S, Chen W, Levy RJ. A DNA controlled-release coating for gene transfer: transfection in skeletal and cardiac muscle. J Pharm Sci. 1998 Nov;87(11):1347-50.
    [Medline: 9811488] [doi: 10.1021/js980077+]
31. Cummings SH, Grande DA, Hee CK, Kestler HK, Roden CM, Shah NV, Razzano P, Dines DM, Chahine NO, Dines JS. Effect of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB-coated sutures on Achilles tendon healing in a rat model: A histological and biomechanical study. J Tissue Eng. 2012;3(1):2041731412453577.
    [Medline: 22798983] [PMC free article: 3394411] [doi: 10.1177/2041731412453577]
32. Shibuya TY, Wei WZ, Zormeier M, Ensley J, Sakr W, Mathog RH, Meleca RJ, Yoo G, June CH, Levine B, Lum LG. Anti-CD3/anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody-coated suture enhances the immune response of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Nov;125(11):1229-34.
    [Medline: 10555694] [doi: 10.1001/archotol.125.11.1229]
33. Blaker JJ, Nazhat SN, Boccaccini AR. Development and characterisation of silver-doped bioactive glass-coated sutures for tissue engineering and wound healing applications. Biomaterials. 2004 Mar-Apr;25(7-8):1319-29.
    [Medline: 14643606] [doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.007]
34. Shibuya TY, Kim S, Nguyen K, Parikh P, Wadhwa A, Brockardt C, Do J. Covalent linking of proteins and cytokines to suture: enhancing the immune response of head and neck cancer patients. Laryngoscope. 2003 Nov;113(11):1870-84.
    [Medline: 14603040] [doi: 10.1097/00005537-200311000-00004]
35. Chen X, Hou D, Tang X, Wang L. Quantitative physical and handling characteristics of novel antibacterial braided silk suture materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015 Oct;50:160-70.
    [Medline: 26143308] [doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.06.013]
36. Chen X, Hou D, Wang L, Zhang Q, Zou J, Sun G. Antibacterial Surgical Silk Sutures Using a High-Performance Slow-Release Carrier Coating System. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015 Oct 14;7(40):22394-403.
    [Medline: 26378964] [doi: 10.1021/acsami.5b06239]
37. García-Vargas M, González-Chomón C, Magariños B, Concheiro A, Alvarez-Lorenzo C, Bucio E. Acrylic polymer-grafted polypropylene sutures for covalent immobilization or reversible adsorption of vancomycin. Int J Pharm.2014 Jan 30;461(1-2):286-95.
    [Medline: 24333904] [doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.11.060]
38. Reinbold J, Uhde AK, Müller I, Weindl T, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Schlensak C, Wendel HP, Krajewski S. Preventing Surgical Site Infections Using a Natural, Biodegradable, Antibacterial Coating on Surgical Sutures. Molecules.2017 Sep 19;22(9):1570.
    [Medline: 28925959] [PMC free article: 6151728] [doi: 10.3390/molecules22091570]
39. Rothenburger S, Spangler D, Bhende S, Burkley D. In vitro antimicrobial evaluation of Coated VICRYL* Plus Antibacterial Suture (coated polyglactin 910 with triclosan) using zone of inhibition assays. Surg Infect (Larchmt).2002;3 Suppl 1:S79-87.
    [Medline: 12573042] [doi: 10.1089/sur.2002.3.s1-79]
40. Meghil MM, Rueggeberg F, El-Awady A, Miles B, Tay F, Pashley D, Cutler CW. Novel Coating of Surgical Suture Confers Antimicrobial Activity Against Porphyromonas gingivalis and Enterococcus faecalis. J Periodontol.2015 Jun;86(6):788-94.
    [Medline: 25703732] [doi: 10.1902/jop.2015.140528]
41. Sudhir VR, Biju T, Ramesh A, Ergieg S, Fanas SA, Desai V, Mohammed AA, Ahmed MA. Effect of Hyaluronic Acid Added to Suture Material and its Relationship with Bacterial Colonization: An In vitro Study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018 Sep-Oct;8(5):391-395.
    [Medline: 30430064] [PMC free article: 6187885] [doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_222_18]
42. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg. 1984 Feb;147(2):197-204.
    [Medline: 6364858] [doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(84)90088-6]
43. Mathew S, Vijaya Kumar K, Prabhu A, Shastry RP, Rajesh KS. Braided silk sutures coated with photoreduced silver nanoparticles for eradicating Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans infections. J Microbiol Methods.2024 May;220:106923.
    [Medline: 38521504] [doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106923]
44. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev.2015 Jan 1;4(1):1.
    [Medline: 25554246] [PMC free article: 4320440] [doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1]
45. La Rosa GRM, Scapellato S, Cicciù M, Pedullà E. Antimicrobial Activity of Antibacterial Sutures in Oral Surgery: A Scoping Review. Int Dent J. 2024 Aug;74(4):688-695.
    [Medline: 38429145] [PMC free article: 11287137] [doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2024.01.029]
46. Nazar J, Nair R, Thelekkat Y, Sheriff R, Karukappillil PK, Usha AM, Philip RM, Naseema NT. Comparing the Clinical and Microbiological Effects of Antibacterial-Coated Vicryl Suture and Non-Coated Vicryl Suture after Minor Oral Surgical Procedures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2025 Apr;24(2):557-568.
    [Medline: 40182450] [PMC free article: 11961785] [doi: 10.1007/s12663-024-02249-7]
47. Kandathil AM, Aslam SA, Abidha R, Cherian MP, Soman S, Sudarsanan M. Evaluation of Microbial Adherence on Antibacterial Suture Materials during Intraoral Wound Healing: A Prospective Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2023 Aug 1;24(8):515-520.
    [Medline: 38193173] [doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3553]
48. Naghsh N, Yaghini J, Arab A, Soltani S. Comparison of the number of bacterial colonies among four types of suture threads using simple loop method following periodontal surgery in patients with periodontitis: A single-blind randomized clinical trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2023 Jun 27;20:71.
    [Medline: 37483897] [doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.379628]
49. Prasetya DA, Rahajoe S, Dwirahardjo B, Wibowo MH. Attachment of Streptococcus Mutans to Intraoral Suture Materials: An in Vitro Study. J Int Dent Med Res. 2021 Sep. 14(4):1321-6.
    [URL: www.jidmr.com/journal/contents-of-jidmr-2021-vol-14-no-4] [doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33760.00007]
50. Jeyashree T, Rajasekar A. Comparison Of Microbial Load On Absorbable And Non Absorbable Suture Materials After Periodontal Flap Surgery. Int J Dent Oral Sci. 2021 Sep;8(9):4624-7.
    [doi: 10.19070/2377-8075-21000942]
51. Nadafpour N, Montazeri M, Moradi M, Ahmadzadeh S, Etemadi A. Bacterial Colonization on Different Suture Materials Used in Oral Implantology: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Front Dent. 2021 Jul 23;18:25.
    [Medline: 35965706] [PMC free article: 9355897] [doi: 10.18502/fid.v18i25.6935]
52. Rodríguez Zorrilla S, Blanco Carrión A, García García A, Galindo Moreno P, Marichalar Mendía X, Seoane Prado R, Pérez Estévez AJ, Pérez-Sayáns M. Effect of antiseptic gels in the microbiologic colonization of the suture threads after oral surgery. Sci Rep. 2020 May 20;10(1):8360.
    [Medline: 32433572] [PMC free article: 7239853] [doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65007-y]
53. Mahesh L, Kumar VR, Jain A, Shukla S, Aragoneses JM, Martínez González JM, Fernández-Domínguez M, Calvo-Guirado JL. Bacterial Adherence Around Sutures of Different Material at Grafted Site: A Microbiological Analysis. Materials (Basel). 2019 Sep 4;12(18):2848.
    [Medline: 31487852] [PMC free article: 6765980] [doi: 10.3390/ma12182848]
54. Etemadi A, Bitaraf T, Amini A, Goudarzi M, Nadafpour N. Bacterial Accumulation on Triclosan-Coated and Silk Sutures After Dental Implant Surgery. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2019 Sep 1;4(3):1-4. [doi: 10.29252/jrdms.4.3.1]
55. Costa RC, Cavalcanti YW, Valença AMG, Almeida LFD. Sutures modified by incorporation of chlorhexidine and cinnamaldehyde: anti-Candida effect, bioavailability and mechanical properties. Rev Odontol UNESP.2019 Aug;48:e20190042.
    [doi: 10.1590/1807-2577.04219]
56. Asher R, Chacartchi T, Tandlich M, Shapira L, Polak D. Microbial accumulation on different suture materials following oral surgery: a randomized controlled study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Feb;23(2):559-565.
    [Medline: 29717362] [doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2476-0]
57. Obermeier A, Schneider J, Harrasser N, Tübel J, Mühlhofer H, Pförringer D, Deimling CV, Foehr P, Kiefel B, Krämer C, Stemberger A, Schieker M, Burgkart R, von Eisenhart-Rothe R. Viable adhered Staphylococcus aureus highly reduced on novel antimicrobial sutures using chlorhexidine and octenidine to avoid surgical site infection (SSI). PLoS One.2018 Jan 9;13(1):e0190912.
    [Medline: 29315313] [PMC free article: 5760023] [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190912]
58. Sethi KS, Karde PA, Joshi CP. Comparative evaluation of sutures coated with triclosan and chlorhexidine for oral biofilm inhibition potential and antimicrobial activity against periodontal pathogens: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res.2016 Sep-Oct;27(5):535-539.
    [Medline: 27966513] [doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.195644]
59. Lambade P, Thorat A. Efficacy of Murva (Sansevieria roxburghiana Schult. and Schult.f.) as a suture material in closure of incisions in third molar surgeries: A prospective study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jan-Jun;8(1):19-25.
    [Medline: 28761272] [PMC free article: 5512404] [doi: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_42_15]
60. Sh ME, Rahgozar S, Tajmiri G, Alizargar J, Mirsatari SA. Microbiological Evaluation of the Antibacterial Vicryl Suture in the Mandibular Third Molar Extraction Surgery. J Orofac Sci. 2022 Jul-Dec;14(2):120-7.
    [doi: 10.4103/jofs.jofs_131_22]
61. Dragović M, Pejović M, Stepić J, Dragović S, Nikolić N, Kuzmanović-Pfićer J, Čolić S, Milašin J. Microbial adherence affinity and clinical characteristics of polypropylene versus silk sutures in oral surgery. Srp Arh Celok Lek.2018 May-Jun;146(5-6):258-63.
    [doi: 10.2298/SARH170428184D]
62. Yalçın E, Uslu H, Dayı E. Microbiologic comparison of silk, polyester [poly(ethyleneterephthalate)], polyglycolic acid, and poly(glycolide-co-lactide) suture materials in oral surgery. Ata Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2019 Jul;29(3):440-7.
    [doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.566794]
63. Bucci M, Borgonovo A, Bianchi A, Zanellato A, Re D. Microbiological analysis of bacterial plaque on three different threads in oral surgery. Minerva Stomatol. 2017 Feb;66(1):28-34.
    [Medline: 27583530] [doi: 10.23736/S0026-4970.17.03966-8]
64. Sala-Pérez S, López-Ramírez M, Quinteros-Borgarello M, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C. Antibacterial suture vs silk for the surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. A randomized clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Jan 1;21(1):e95-102.
    [Medline: 26615503] [PMC free article: 4765748] [doi: 10.4317/medoral.20721]
65. Krishna S, Bhaskaran R, Kumar SP, Krishnan M, Lakshmanan S. Microbiological Evaluation of Four Different Suture Materials Used for the Surgical Removal of Impacted Lower Third Molars: A Single-Center Prospective Comparative Study. Cureus. 2023 Nov 24;15(11):e49370.
    [Medline: 38146549] [doi: 10.7759/cureus.49370]
66. Uysal AE, Sencimen M, Ozkan A, Hosbul T, Samur Erguven S, Parlak F. Clinical and microbiological comparison of knotless/barbed and silk sutures for impacted third-molar surgery. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2023 Aug;72(4):161-167.
    [Medline: 36951010] [doi: 10.23736/S2724-6329.23.04764-2]
67. Anand M, Neelakandan RS. Bacterial Load on Suture Material after Surgical Removal of Third Molars -A Comparative Clinical Studies between Silk Suture Vs Antibacterial Suture. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2020 Oct;19(10):56-64.
    [doi: 10.9790/0853-1910105664 ]
68. Parrini S, Bovicelli A, Chisci G. Microbiological Retention on PTFE versus Silk Suture: A Quantitative Pilot Study in Third Molar Surgery. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Mar 13;12(3):562.
    [Medline: 36978429] [PMC free article: 10044079] [doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12030562]
69. Chisci G, Capuano A, Parrini S. Alveolar Osteitis and Third Molar Pathologies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.2018 Feb;76(2):235-236.
    [Medline: 29154775] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.09.026]
70. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man; a study of the problems of wound infection.Br J Exp Pathol. 1957 Dec;38(6):573-86.
    [Medline: 13499821] [PMC free article: 2083292]
71. Koshak HH. Dental Suturing Materials and Techniques. Glob J Oto. 2017 Dec 12;12(2):555833.
    [doi: 10.19080/GJO.2017.12.555833]
72. Altman GH, Diaz F, Jakuba C, Calabro T, Horan RL, Chen J, Lu H, Richmond J, Kaplan DL. Silk-based biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2003 Feb;24(3):401-16.
    [Medline: 12423595] [doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00353-8]
73. Otten JE, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Jahnke H, Pelz K. Bacterial colonization on different suture materials--a potential risk for intraoral dentoalveolar surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005 Jul;74(1):627-35.
    [Medline: 15889436] [doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30250]
74. Venema S, Abbas F, van de Belt-Gritter B, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, van Hoogmoed CG. In vitro oral biofilm formation on triclosan-coated sutures in the absence and presence of additional antiplaque treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Apr;69(4):980-5.
    [Medline: 20674122] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.02.030]