# Evaluation of the Effect of Polybutester and Polypropylene
## 4 Discussion
They found that PP caused less of a tissue reaction than silk [30]. [PERSON] et al. evaluated the residual bacterial retention of polylecapron, PP, silk, polyglycolic acid 63 and triclosan antimicrobial polyglycolic acid suture materials. Bacterial retention on PP was found to be lower than that on polyglycolic acid sutures [31]. In a study evaluating the capillarity differences of different suture materials, it was shown that the liquid absorption capacity of PP was lower than that of PGA, polylactic acid and silk [24]. According to the results of these studies, PP sutures were found to produce low bacterial adhesion, low fluid absorption and low tissue reaction. In this study, no wound healing complications were observed in the PP group in the postoperative period. This result supports the results obtained with PP sutures in the mentioned studies. PP was preferred as the active control group in this study because of its time-independent structural durability, high knot security, flexibility and other favorable physical properties. When the studies in which PE sutures were used were examined, [PERSON] et al. investigated the stress and strain properties of PE, nylon and polyglycolic acid suture knots. Under a 2 Newton load, PE was shown to elongate four times more than nylon and ten times more than polyglycolic acid [32]. In a study comparing PE and nylon for ophthalmologic use, both sutures showed similar manipulation properties and nylon was shown to biodegradable more than PE over an average of 18 months [33]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] recommended that PE sutures should be preferred when postoperative swelling is expected [14]. According to the results of the previously mentioned studies, polybutester sutures, which are synthetic, monofilament and non-resorbable, were found to have high elasticity as well as minimal inflammation [15; 16]. In this study, no wound dehiscence was encountered in the postoperative period in the PE suture group. In addition, it was observed that suture discomfort was less in the PE group on postoperative day 2. This shows that PE was tolerated better. Studies comparing PE and PP sutures have shown that PE has higher strength, lower stiffness and a lower coefficient of friction than PP [14; 15; 16; 17]. No study comparing PE and PP in oral and maxillofacial surgery was found in the literature. [PERSON] et al. showed in their study on femoral artery anastomosis in dogs that PE produced more successful anastomoses than PP [34]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] compared PE with PP in patients with skin injuries. They found that the PE sutures were easier to use and remove and had better cosmetic results [35]. In this study, swelling and trismus values were similar between the PE and PP groups on the 2 nd postoperative day and 7 th postoperative day. Both suture materials were similar in terms of wound dehiscence at the incision line. In terms of surrounding tissue injury caused by the sutures, both sutures were similar. On the 2 nd postoperative day, it was observed that less pain was felt on the side where PE was used. We think that due to the more flexible structure of the PE, the tension on the suture was less transmitted to the soft tissues on the day when swelling was high, resulting in less pain in patients. On the 2 nd postoperative day, patients felt less discomfort on the side where PE was used. The contact of the sutures to the cheek tissue probably increased on the 2 nd postoperative day when the swelling was the highest, and the patients felt less discomfort during this contact because the PE sutures were softer. In this study, the positioning of the sutures buccal, medial or lingual to the incision line was not standardized. The length and number of sutures were also not considered. These are the limitations of the study.