Introduction: Traditionally the suture technique most used is with Silk 3.0 or 4.0, but it facilitates biofilm accumulation, because the Silk has polifilaments and it needs to be removed. Now in the market there are new materials to adhesive suture technique. Adhesive suture is simple, painless and does not need to be removed.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare both techniques.

Study design: The universe was 12 patients had both third lower molars, which belonged to the same Pell and Gregory class. All the patients needed a flap for extraction. The third molar removal was performed at the same surgery, under local anesthesia. One side was sutured with Silk 3.0 (Ethicon ^® ) and the other side with n-butyl-cyanoacrylate (Tisuacryl ^® ). Suturing time was determined using a stopwatch, inflammation degree was evaluated at the third and seventh postoperative days with a visual scale, and postoperative pain was determined through EVA scale and a patient survey at the seventh postoperative day. All the patients had the same pharmacology protocol after surgery.

Results: Adhesive technique with Tisuacryl ^® was significantly faster than the Silk technique ( p < 0.001). There were no differences in pain and inflammation degree of wound ( p > 0.05).

Conclusion: This study suggested that adhesive technique is faster than suture technique, but both techniques are efficient in wound closure.

Conflict of interest: None declared.