Comparative assessment of cyanoacrylate adhesive and sutures for closing donor sites of the hard palate mucosa during a single surgical procedure: a clinical case

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Introduction: Suturing is still the most common wound closure method in dentistry. However, this approach has a number of drawbacks, including the risk of inflammation, delayed healing, and inconveniences for patients, necessitating the research of alternative techniques. Because of their quick polymerization in a moist environment and good biocompatibility, cyanoacrylate adhesives are considered a promising alternative option.

Case description: Two donor sites of the hard palate mucosa were closed during a single surgical procedure: one using “Sulfacrylate” cyanoacrylate adhesive and the other by suturing. Clinical assessment and photo documentation were performed, and the patient’s subjective perception was analyzed 7 days and 1.5 years after surgery to compare the healing of the hard palate mucosa with different wound closure approaches.

The site where the adhesive was applied showed faster healing, minimal inflammation, and excellent esthetic results without scarring. The procedure time for the adhesive was significantly shorter than for suturing. The patient reported less discomfort on the side where the adhesive was applied.

Conclusion: “Sulfacrylate” cyanoacrylate adhesive is an effective and safe alternative to conventional suturing, with improved healing and comfort for patients. Further real-world studies of this approach are recommended.

References

  1. Kumar MS, Natta S, Shankar G, et al. Comparison between silk sutures and cyanoacrylate adhesive in human mucosa — a clinical and histological study. J Int Oral Health. 2013;5(5):95–100.
  2. Joshi AD, Saluja H, Mahindra U, Halli R. A comparative study: efficacy of tissue glue and sutures after impacted mandibular third molar removal. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011;10(4):310–315. doi: 10.1007/s12663-011-0241-x EDN: KJEBQP
  3. Devrukhkar VN, Hegde RJ, Khare SS, Saraf TA. Evaluation of isoamyl 2-cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive in management of pediatric lacerations: An alternative to suturing. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2015;5(1):49–54. doi: 10.4103/2231-0746.161059
  4. Coulthard P, Esposito M, Worthington HV, et al. Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD004287. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004287.pub2
  5. Krivenchuk V, Zinovkin D, Dundarov Z, Zyblev S. Comparison of the variants of closure of initial aseptic wounds on the neck (experimental research). Surgery. East Europe. 2017;6(2):276–285. EDN: YRLJFX
  6. Montanaro L, Arciola CR, Cenni E, et al. Cytotoxicity, blood compatibility and antimicrobial activity of two cyanoacrylate glues for surgical use. Biomaterials. 2001;22(1):59–66. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00163-0 EDN: AKHNLN
  7. Modina TN, Bolbat MV. The use of medical adhesive “Sulfacrylate” in dental practice. Biysk: Publishing House “Biya”; 2014.
  8. Rezende ML, Cunha Pde O, Damante CA, et al. Cyanoacrylate adhesive as an alternative tool for membrane fixation in guided tissue regeneration. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16(6):512–518. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1714
  9. Sagar P, Prasad K, Lalitha RM, Ranganath K. Cyanoacrylate for intraoral wound closure: a possibility? Int J Biomater. 2015;2015:165428. doi: 10.1155/2015/165428
  10. Malhotra V, Dayashankara Rao J, Arya V, et al. Evaluating the use of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate in unilateral cleft lip repair. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2016;7(2):153–158. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.201364
  11. Lins RD, Gomes RC, Santos KS, et al. Use of cyanoacrylate in the coaptation of edges of surgical wounds. An Bras Dermatol. 2012;87(6):871–876. doi: 10.1590/s0365-05962012000600008
  12. Souza SC, Oliveira WL, Soares DF, et al. Comparative study of suture and cyanoacrylates in skin closure of rats. Acta Cir Bras. 2007;22(4):309–316. doi: 10.1590/s0102-86502007000400013
  13. Kulkarni S, Dodwad V, Chava V. Healing of periodontal flaps when closed with silk sutures and N-butyl cyanoacrylate: A clinical and histological study. Indian J Dent Res. 2007;18(2):72–77. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.32424
  14. Maia GV, Sousa CW, de Lima JCR, et al. Cyanoacrylate glue in socket repair: A comparative study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;60(2):145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.01.017 EDN: HKOVLG
  15. Gonçalves MWA, Souza MRF, Becheleni MT, et al. Does cyanoacrylate have the best postoperative outcomes after third molar extractions when compared to conventional sutures? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023;10(1):e23058. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23058 EDN: IQJRBH
  16. Veríssimo AH, Ribeiro AKC, Martins ARLA, et al. Comparative analysis of the hemostatic, analgesic and healing effects of cyanoacrylate on free gingival graft surgical wounds in donor and recipient areas: a systematic review. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2021;32(9):98. doi: 10.1007/s10856-021-06573-z EDN: BJWUKM
  17. Aksenov KA, Lomakin MV. Peculiarities of surgical wound healing in oral cavity. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2008;1(1):69–72. EDN: TQTLAJ
  18. Ghoreishian M, Gheisari R, Fayazi M. Tissue adhesive and suturing for closure of the surgical wound after removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a comparative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(1):e14–e16. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.03.001
  19. Samuel PR, Roberts AC, Nigam A. The use of Indermil (n-butyl cyanoacrylate) in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery. A preliminary report on the first 33 patients. J Laryngol Otol. 1997;111(6):536–540. doi: 10.1017/s0022215100137855
  20. Zucchelli G, Mazzotti C, Mounssif I, et al. A novel surgical-prosthetic approach for soft tissue dehiscence coverage around single implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(9):957–962. doi: 10.1111/clr.12003

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Photos on the suture side: a — on the day of surgery; b — 7 days after surgery; c — 1.5 years after surgery.

Download (274KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Photos on the adhesive side: a — on the day of surgery; b — 7 days after surgery; c — 1.5 years after surgery.

Download (253KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector


 


Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).