Comparative Evaluation of Suture Removal Timing on Soft Tissue Healing after Oral Surgery
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: The optimal interval for removing sutures after oral surgery remains uncertain because premature removal may reduce wound support, whereas prolonged retention may increase tissue irritation and discomfort. Objective: To compare postoperative soft-tissue healing, pain, inflammation, patient comfort, wound dehiscence, and infection following suture removal on Days 5, 7, and 10. Methods: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in dental teaching hospitals in Sindh, Pakistan, from January to December 2025. A total of 105 adults undergoing oral surgical procedures requiring primary closure were allocated equally to Day 5, Day 7, or Day 10 removal. Healing was evaluated using the Early Wound Healing Score, while pain, inflammation, comfort, dehiscence, and infection were assessed during follow-up. Complete-case analysis included 103 participants. Results: Day 5 healing scores did not differ significantly among groups (p=0.531). From Day 7 onward, the Day 7 group demonstrated higher healing scores and lower pain and inflammation. On Day 14, healing scores were 8.8±0.7, 9.6±0.5, and 9.3±0.6 in the Day 5, Day 7, and Day 10 groups, respectively (p<0.001). Corresponding pain scores were 0.5±0.3, 0.2±0.1, and 0.4±0.2 (p=0.004), while inflammation scores were 1.1±0.4, 0.5±0.2, and 0.8±0.3 (p<0.001). Dehiscence and infection differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Day 7 removal produced the most favourable overall healing and patient-reported profile under the study protocol, although complication outcomes remained inconclusive
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Osunde OD, Saheeb BD, Adebola RA. Comparative study of effect of single and multiple suture techniques on inflammatory complications after third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(4):971–6. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.009.
2. Osunde OD, Adebola RA, Saheeb BD. A comparative study of the effect of sutureless and multiple suture techniques on inflammatory complications following third molar surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(10):1275–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.009.
3. Maria A, Malik M, Virang P. Comparison of primary and secondary closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012;11(3):276–83. doi:10.1007/s12663-011-0287-9.
4. Setiya S, Halli R, Shah A, Chhabaria G, Singh T. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of tissue glue and sutures after impacted mandibular third molar surgery. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2015;5(1):18–22. doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2014.12.001.
5. Guo S, DiPietro LA. Factors affecting wound healing. J Dent Res. 2010;89(3):219–29. doi:10.1177/0022034509359125.
6. Politis C, Schoenaers J, Jacobs R, Agbaje JO. Wound healing problems after oral surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;122(4):e123–30. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2016.05.005.
7. Larsson L, Decker AM, Nibali L, Pilipchuk SP, Berglundh T, Giannobile WV. Regenerative medicine for periodontal and peri-implant diseases. J Dent Res. 2016;95(3):255–66. doi:10.1177/0022034515618887.
8. Abdull EH, Abd-almoneim NA, Hassan MO, Namik AI. Effect of different suture removal time intervals on surgical wound healing. J Oral Health Sci Dent. 2026;1(1):1–9.
9. Mackay DR, Miller TA. Wound healing and management. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(5):945–59. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2018.05.001.
10. Cortellini P, Tonetti MS. Clinical concepts for periodontal wound healing. Periodontol 2000. 2015;68(1):282–307. doi:10.1111/prd.12082.
11. Koyuncu BO, Zeytinoğlu M, Tetik A, Gomel MM. Effect of tube drainage compared with conventional suturing after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(1):63–7. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.09.021.
12. Pachipulusu PK. Comparative study of primary and secondary closure after removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;22(3):261–6. doi:10.1007/s10006-018-0696-8.
13. Alkadi S, Stassen LFA. Effect of one-suture and sutureless techniques on postoperative healing after third molar surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(4):703.e1–16. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.12.001.
14. Ma S, Li X, Zhang A, Liu S, Zhao H, Zhao H. Efficacy of secondary closure technique after extraction of third molars: a meta-analysis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(10):977–84. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2019.08.028.
15. Balamurugan R, Zachariah T. Comparison of primary and secondary closure after mandibular impacted third molar surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;24:37–43. doi:10.1007/s10006-019-00814-w.
16. Farina R, Simonelli A, Rizzi A, Pramstraller M, Cucchi A, Trombelli L. Early wound healing evaluation after periodontal surgery. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(7):2401–10. doi:10.1007/s00784-019-03080-8.
17. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332.
18. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.
19. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
20. Rodrigues EDR, Martins-de-Barros AV, Loureiro AM, et al. Comparison of two suture techniques on inflammatory signs after third molar extraction: randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2023;18(6):e0286413. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286413.
21. Gürses G, et al. Comparison of interrupted and locked continuous suture techniques in oral surgery regarding wound healing. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;51:41–5. doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2025.51.1.41.
22. Singer AJ, Dagum AB. Current management of acute cutaneous wounds. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(10):1037–46. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0707253.
23. Kumar N, Prasad K, Ramanujam L, et al. Evaluation of healing following oral surgical procedures. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZC45–9. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25435.10026.
24. Baloch B, Channar KA, Shah SAR, et al. Comparison of single versus multiple suture technique after third molar extraction. Pak J Health Sci. 2024;5(8):225–9. doi:10.54393/pjhs.v5i08.1727.
25. Lau AA, De Silva RK, Thomson M, et al. Third molar surgery outcomes: randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(2):295–304. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2020.09.020.
26. Azab M, Ibrahim S, Li A, et al. Secondary versus primary closure techniques after impacted mandibular third molar extraction. J Am Dent Assoc. 2022;153(10):943–56. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2022.04.007.
27. Zhang Y, Zhuang P, Jia B, et al. Persistent trismus following mandibular third molar extraction. World Acad Sci J. 2021;3(1):1–7. doi:10.3892/wasj.2020.73.
28. Santos KK, Lages FS, Maciel CA, et al. Prevalence and classification of mandibular third molars. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2022;21:1–7.
29. Mahat AK, Yadav R, Yadav AK, et al. Sutureless versus multiple sutures technique following third molar surgery. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:9314762. doi:10.1155/2020/9314762.
30. Shuja E, Orakzai GS, Khan MN, Siddiqui MO. Comparing pain and trismus in primary and secondary closure after impacted mandibular third molar removal. J Rawalpindi Med Coll. 2020;24(1):8–11. doi:10.37939/jrmc/vol24.iss1.3.