Objectives We investigated the prevalence and diversity of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from urine samples of community-onset urinary tract infection (UTI) patients in southern Assam, India. Methods Freshly voided midstream urine samples were collected from patients attending primary healthcare centres, with the patients’ epidemiological data also recorded. Species identification was confirmed using a VITEK 2 compact automated system. Phenotypic confirmation of ESBLs was performed using the combined disc diffusion method (CLSI 2017) and carbapenemase production was phenotypically characterized using a modified Hodge test. Common ESBLs and carbapenem-resistance mechanisms were determined in Escherichia coli isolates using PCR assays. Incompatibility typing of the conjugable plasmids was determined by PCR-based replicon typing; the phylotypes and MLSTs were also analysed. Results A total of 301 (59.7%) samples showed significant bacteriuria along with symptoms of UTI and among them 103 isolates were identified as E. coli of multiple STs (ST3268, ST3430, ST4671 and others). Among them, 26.2% (27/103) were phenotypically ESBL producers whereas 12.6% (13/103) were carbapenemase producers. This study describes the occurrence of diverse ESBL genes—blaCTX-M-15, blaSHV-148, blaPER-1 and blaTEM—and two E. coli isolates carrying the blaNDM-1 carbapenemase gene. ESBL genes were located within transconjugable plasmids of IncP and IncF type whereas blaNDM-1 was carried in an IncFrepB type plasmid. Conclusions This study illustrates the high rate of MDR in E. coli causing UTI in primary care in rural Assam. UTIs caused by ESBL- or MBL-producing bacteria are very difficult to treat and can often lead to treatment failure. Thus, future research should focus on rapid diagnostics to enable targeted treatment options and reduce the treatment failure likely to occur with commonly prescribed antibiotics, which will help to combat antimicrobial resistance and the burden of UTIs.

Aim The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and porosity of different provisional restorative materials. Materials and methods Provisional restorative materials were divided into following three groups: Dental products of india (DPI), Protemp, Tempofit. For each group, wax block with 20 × 10 × 3 mm was made for making vinyl polysiloxane impression material to give 12 samples in each group of three different provisional restorative materials. The acrylic resin was inserted into the silicon impression mold. A total of 12 specimens of one material were obtained. The specimens were finished with the help of lathe using a sequence of grit sand paper. The surface roughness was verified with the help of a micron dial indicator. To facilitate the porosity readings, the specimens were immersed in dye for 2 hours. The number of pores in each area was determined with a stereomicroscope with magnification 1× 50× to check the porosity of three different provisional restorative materials. Values were subjected to statistical analysis. Results Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare between Tempofit, Protemp, and DPI. The results obtained indicated that surface roughness of Protemp was least compared with Tempofit and DPI. The ANOVA test was used to check surface area of porosities in each provisional material, followed by Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney test (highly significant) (p < 0.001). The results obtained indicate that Protemp material showed the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness followed by Tempofit and DPI. Henceforth, it can be concluded that among the three tested materials, Protemp was the best material which can be used for provisional restorations. Conclusion Surface roughness and porosity were compared among Protemp, Tempofit, and DPI material; the best results were obtained with the use of Protemp material which had shown the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness. How to cite this article Kumar GV, Devi R, Anto N. Evaluation and Comparison of the Surface Roughness and Porosity of Different Provisional Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2016;8(1):39-45.

Aim: This study was undertaken to compare and evaluate retentive strength of glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and adhesive resin cement with nickel-chromium (Ni-Cr) cast crowns. Materials and methods: Thirty orthodontically extracted caries-free premolars were prepared using a surveyor and jig assembly to achieve standardized tooth preparation. All the 30 teeth after tooth preparation and fabrication of metal copings were divided into the following three groups: group I is the control group in which conventional GIC was used as the cementing agent. Twenty teeth were prepared, of which 10 were for group II (RMGIC) and 10 specimens for group III 3M ESPE (adhesive resin luting cement). Metal crowns were cemented using conventional GIC, RMGIC, and adhesive resin cement, and all specimens were stored at 37°C for 1 week. Before testing for retention, crown pull test was done using universal testing machine and a tensile load at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute was applied. The maximal force to remove the crown was recorded in kgF and was converted to MPa. Results: Group I had a mean retentive strength of 2.276 MPa. Group II had a mean retentive strength of 5.516 MPa. Group III had a mean retentive strength of 6.446 MPa. The results were subjected to statistical analysis, and the mean retentive strength and standard deviation of each group were calculated. Tukey's multiple comparison test and analysis of variance yielded significant results. Interpretation and conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn: The retentive strength of selfadhesive resin cements was better than RMGIC and conventional GIC.