Antimicrobial resistance in dentistry

Vivares-Builes

2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients were assessed. A systematic scoping review of observational studies and trials was established in conjunction with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIELO, Web of Science, and LILACS databases were reviewed along with the gray literature. The primary electronic examination produced 139 investigations. Finally, four observational studies met the selection criteria. These studies evaluated 214 implants in 168 patients. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum mainly presented high resistance to tetracycline, metronidazole, and erythromycin in PI patients. Similarly, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was also highly resistant to clindamycin and doxycycline. Other microorganisms such as Tannerella forsythia, Parvimonas micra, and Prevotella intermedia/nigrescens also presented significant levels of resistance to other antibiotics including amoxicillin, azithromycin, and moxifloxacin. However, most microorganisms did not show resistance to the combination amoxicillin metronidazole. Although the management of adjunctive antimicrobials in the therapy of PI is controversial, in this review, the resistance of relevant microorganisms to antibiotics used to treat PI, and usually prescribed in dentistry, was observed. Clinicians should consider the antibiotic resistance demonstrated in the treatment of PI patients and its public health consequences.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bearing in mind that the empirical line for the management and practice of antimicrobials in odontology is an established concern [ 30 ], it is appropriate to complete a systematic scoping review that facilitates the assessment of the antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic Resistance in Patients with Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Scoping Review

Vivares-Builes

2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

“…Alternatively, the prescription and period of the antiseptic protocol may have been insufficient, or the distribution of the medicament to the local site may have been less than ideal 19 . In addition, geographical disparities in antimicrobial resistance profiles occur 10,36–38 . Therefore, more RCTs are required to evaluate antiseptic resistance in dental patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 In addition, geographical disparities in antimicrobial resistance profiles occur. 10,[36][37][38] Therefore, more RCTs are required to evaluate antiseptic resistance in dental patients. In this regard, a review involving seven reports that assessed 374 patients from diverse nations worldwide, divulged that antimicrobial resistance frequencies varied according to the preceding utilization of antimicrobials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial resistance to antiseptics used in dentistry: A systematic scoping review of randomized clinical trials

Bedoya-García

2022

Int J Dental Hygiene

Self Cite

The menace of antibiotic resistance has had robust relevance recently. This concern has led to the creation of public policies and alternative antimicrobial management. 1 Contrariwise, less consideration has been assumed to the directly interconnected trouble of resistance regarding antiseptics. 1,2 This is noteworthy because microbial resistance to antiseptics such as benzalkonium chloride and biocides (triclosan, chlorhexidine, and cetylpyridinium chloride), including the induction of cross-resistance between them and some antibiotics, has long been recognized in the medical management of different diseases. 3,4 These antiseptics have also been widely used in dentistry as oral rinses and gels, including oral care formulations. The use of antiseptics has also been extended to improve the oral hygiene conditions of hospitalized patients. 5,6 Thus, present protocols of prevention in dentistry are pointed at decreasing dental biofilm in an attempt to diminish the occurrence of periodontal diseases and caries. 7 On the

“…Alternatively, the prescription and period of the antiseptic protocol may have been insufficient, or the distribution of the medicament to the local site may have been less than ideal 19 . Moreover, geographical disparities in antimicrobial resistance profiles occur 16,38,39 . Therefore, more RCTs are required to evaluate antiseptic resistance in hospitalized patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial resistance to oral antiseptics used in hospitalized patients: A systematic scoping review of randomized clinical trials

Special Care in Dentistry

Bedoya-García

2022

Self Cite

To evaluate the prevalence and proportions of bacteria resistant to oral antiseptics used in hospitalized patients. Methods and results: A review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was led by implementing the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews including various databases. MeSH terms and keywords were used to assess only RCTs with antiseptic-resistant outcomes. Fourth RCTs met the selection criteria. These trials studied 399 hospitalized patients for respiratory infections or cardiovascular disease. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii were predominant pathogens in the chlorhexidine group. It was found that Veillonella parvula and Campylobacter gracilis (57% of the isolates) had resistance to triclosan, while 67% of Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, and Enterobacter species presented resistance to chlorhexidine. However, an increase in minimal inhibitory concentrations of triclosan or chlorhexidine during the follow-up period was not observed. Moreover, chlorhexidine reduced the amount of S. aureus in dental plaque and the oropharyngeal colonization by aerobic microorganisms; nonetheless, it was unsatisfactory to decrease the occurrence of respiratory infections. No adverse events were reported.Conclusions: Resistance of V. parvula and C. gracilis to triclosan, and Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, and Enterobacter species to chlorhexidine were perceived. However, these resistances did not increase during the follow-up period.