AIM: To investigate the effect of four commonly used wound care regimens on the tensile strength of suture materials.
METHODS: The failure load of 9 different suture materials was tested using the Instron Electroplus E3000 tensile testing machine (Instron Corporation, Norwood, Massachusetts). Tensile strength was represented as the failure load, measured in Newtons (N), and defined as the maximal load that could be applied across the suture prior to failure. Each suture was tested dry and after immersion in one of 4 products for 7 days and tested on day 7. The immersion agents tested were: sodium chloride 0.9%, MicroSafe® (Sonoma Pharmaceuticals, Petaluma, CA), Aqueous Povidone-iodine 10% solution (Betadine-Mundipharma), and Fucidin ointment.
RESULTS: Sodium chloride 0.9%, MicroSafe®, Aqueous Povidone-iodine 10%, and Fucidin seem to increase the failure load of most absorbable and non-absorbable sutures. However, the failure load of Polyglactin 910 suture (Surgilactin, coated, violet-Ethicon) is reduced by long-term exposure to either sodium chloride 0.9% or MicroSafe®, while the failure load of the Polydioxanone suture (PDS Plus-Ethicon) is reduced by long-term exposure to MicroSafe® only.
CONCLUSION: In our experiment, the commonly used wound care products have been shown to alter the tensile strength of suture materials. Further human studies are required to ascertain the clinical validity and applicability of our findings.
METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.
SIGNIFICANCE: This chewing simulation test showed that Tetric EvoCeram composites exhibited a rougher surface when opposing lithium disilicate ceramic compared to opposing zirconia ceramic.