medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-3178 (Print)
Asociación Mexicana de Cirugía Bucal y Maxilofacial, Colegio Mexicano de Cirugía Bucal y Maxilofacial, A.C.

2018, Number 2

<< Back

Rev Mex Cir Bucal Maxilofac 2018; 14 (2)

Vicryl simple (polyglactine 910) versus Vicryl Plus (polyglactine 910 with triclosan) in the oral cavity

Hernández GFE, Dueñas GR, Mercado GAE, Hernández CII, Gutiérrez MCMA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 106-111
PDF size: 165.30 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most common nosocomial infection and the first among surgical patients. The majority of SSI are closely related to sutures, for this reason sutures coated with antibacterial triclosan were developed. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Vicryl Plus resorbable suture (with triclosan) with that of the simple Vicryl suture (without triclosan) in the inhibition of bacterial growth by means of absorbance measurement and McFarland turbidity scale when exposed to the buccal environment. Material and methods: Observational, comparative, longitudinal and prospective study in 20 patients of the Civil Hospital «Dr. Juan I. Menchaca», Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, who required surgical excision of lower third molars on both sides. The patients were divided into 2 groups, in one group was placed Vicryl Plus on the left side and Vicryl simple on the right side and vice versa. Three days later a portion of suture was collected and seeded on liquid agar. The absorbance was measured and the McFarland turbidity scale was used to obtain an estimate of the Colony Forming Units. The results were recorded in an instrument designed for that purpose. Results: The mean absorbance at six hours was 0.0710 on the Vicryl Plus and 0.567 on the Vicryl simple. At 24 hours it was 0.3034 on the Vicryl Plus and 0.2771 on the Vicryl simple. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in the inhibition of bacterial growth between Vicryl Plus and simple Vicryl suture exposed to the microbiological environment of the oral cavity.


REFERENCES

  1. Navarro-Vila C, García-Marín F, Ochandiano-Caicoya S. Cirugía oral. Madrid: Aran Ediciones; 2008.

  2. Gay-Escoda C, Berini-Aytés L. Tratado de cirugía bucal. Madrid: Ergon; 2004.

  3. Cárdenas N. Cambios en la pulsioximetría en pacientes sometidos a cirugía de terceros molares. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara; 2013.

  4. Ueno M, Saito W, Yamagata M, Imura T, Inoue G, Nakazawa T et al. Triclosan-coated sutures reduce wound infections after spinal surgery: a retrospective, nonrandomized, clinical study. Spine J. 2015; 15 (5): 933-938.

  5. Ford HR, Jones P, Gaines B, Reblock K, Simpkins DL. Intraoperative handling and wound healing: controlled clinical trial comparing coated VICRYL plus antibacterial suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture with triclosan) with coated VICRYL suture (coated polyglactin 910 suture). Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2005; 6 (3): 313-321.

  6. Galal I, El-Hindawy K. Impact of using triclosan-antibacterial sutures on incidence of surgical site infection. Am J Surg. 2011; 202 (2): 133-138.

  7. Phillips J, O’Grady H, Baker E. Prevention of surgical site infections. Surgery (Oxford). 2014; 32 (9): 468-471.

  8. Bellorín-López MH. Estudio comparativo de la respuesta tisular de la mucosa bucal suturada con dos materiales diferentes en cirugía bucal [Tesis]. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela; 2002.

  9. Susarla SM, Dodson TB. Risk factors for third molar extraction difficulty. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62 (11): 1363-1371.

  10. Arteagoitia I, Ramos E, Santamaria G, Barbier L, Alvarez J, Santamaria J. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 2000/125 mg to prevent complications due to infection following completely bone-impacted lower third molar removal: a clinical trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015; 119 (1): 8-16.

  11. Yoshii T, Hamamoto Y, Muraoka S, Furudoi S, Komori T. Differences in postoperative morbidity rates, including infection and dry socket, and differences in the healing process after mandibular third molar surgery in patients receiving 1-day or 3-day prophylaxis with lenampicillin. J Infect Chemother. 2002; 8 (1): 87-93.

  12. Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Incidence and clinical features of delayed-onset infections after extraction of lower third molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99 (3): 265-269.

  13. Calvo AM, Brozoski DT, Giglio FP, Gonçalves PZ, Sant’ana E, Dionísio TJ et al. Are antibiotics necessary after lower third molar removal? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 114 (5 Suppl): S199-S208.

  14. 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-S87.

  15. Storch ML, Rothenburger SJ, Jacinto G. Experimental efficacy study of coated VICRYL plus antibacterial suture in guinea pigs challenged with Staphylococcus aureus. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2004; 5 (3): 281-288.

  16. Gómez-Alonso A, García-Criado FJ, Parreño-Manchado FC, García-Sánchez JE, García-Sánchez E, Parreño-Manchado A et al. Study of the efficacy of Coated VICRYL Plus Antibacterial suture (coated Polyglactin 910 suture with Triclosan) in two animal models of general surgery. J Infect. 2007; 54 (1): 82-88.

  17. Chen SY, Chen TM, Dai NT, Fu JP, Chang SC, Deng SC et al. Do antibacterial-coated sutures reduce wound infection in head and neck cancer reconstruction? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011; 37 (4): 300-304.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com