Nonresorbable versus Resorbable Sutures in Oral Implant Surgery: A Prospective Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regarding the Brånemark implant system, nonresorbable sutures have been advocated for reapproximation of the flaps. Fast-absorbable sutures are frequently used in oral surgery, which is convenient for both the patient and the surgeon. It would be advantageous if fast-absorbable sutures are suitable in implant surgery as well. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide, Ethicon GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) suture with a nonresorbable polyfilament suture (Supramid, Schwarz, Resorba GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany) used in oral implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 101 edentulous patients (52 females, 49 males) who were provided with 350 Brånemark implants. They were randomized to receive either Vicryl Rapide suture (n = 61) or 3-0 Supramid suture (n = 40). The patients were evaluated after 10 days and at the time of abutment surgery. Any wound complications and implant losses were recorded. RESULTS: The implant failure rate at abutment surgery was low (1.2%), and no difference was seen between the two suture groups. A higher incidence of complications (mainly wound dehiscence) was found in the absorbable suture group, especially when a continuous suture was used. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that it is possible to use irradiated polyglactin 910 sutures in oral implant surgery without affecting the rate of early implant failure. However, it is recommended to add interrupted "security sutures" if a continuous suture technique is used in combination with fast-absorption suture material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".