Abstract:Antibiotic resistance poses a global threat, which is being acknowledged at several levels, including research, clinical implementation, regulation, as well as by the World Health Organization. In the field of oral health, however, the issue of antibiotic resistances, as well as of accurate diagnosis, is underrepresented. Oral diseases in general were ranked third in terms of expenditures among the EU-28 member states in 2015. Yet, the diagnosis and patient management of oral infections, in particular, still d… Show more
“…Amoxicillin is frequently the first choice for treating bacterial infections in the oral cavity due to its broad spectrum activity against typical oral pathogens and its favorable pharmacokinetics [54,55]. The most frequent resistance mechanism in E. faecalis involves mutations that simultaneously alter PBP4 s affinity for amoxicillin and overexpress the modified enzyme [56,57].…”
Enterococcus faecalis, a leading multi-resistant nosocomial pathogen, is also the most frequently retrieved species from persistently infected dental root canals, suggesting that the oral cavity is a possible reservoir for resistant strains. However, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for oral enterococci remains scarce. Here, we examined the AST profiles of 37 E. faecalis strains, including thirty-four endodontic isolates, two vanA-type vancomycin-resistant isolates, and the reference strain ATCC-29212. Using Etest gradient strips and established EUCAST standards, we determined minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for amoxicillin, vancomycin, clindamycin, tigecycline, linezolid, and daptomycin. Results revealed that most endodontic isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin and vancomycin, with varying levels of intrinsic resistance to clindamycin. Isolates exceeding the clindamycin MIC of the ATCC-29212 strain were further tested against last-resort antibiotics, with 7/27 exhibiting MICs matching the susceptibility breakpoint for tigecycline, and 1/27 reaching that of linezolid. Both vanA isolates confirmed vancomycin resistance and demonstrated resistance to tigecycline. In conclusion, while most endodontic isolates remained susceptible to first-line antibiotics, several displayed marked intrinsic clindamycin resistance, and MICs matched tigecycline’s breakpoint. The discovery of tigecycline resistance in vanA isolates highlights the propensity of clinical clone clusters to acquire multidrug resistance. Our results emphasize the importance of implementing AST strategies in dental practices for continued resistance surveillance.
“…Amoxicillin is frequently the first choice for treating bacterial infections in the oral cavity due to its broad spectrum activity against typical oral pathogens and its favorable pharmacokinetics [54,55]. The most frequent resistance mechanism in E. faecalis involves mutations that simultaneously alter PBP4 s affinity for amoxicillin and overexpress the modified enzyme [56,57].…”
Enterococcus faecalis, a leading multi-resistant nosocomial pathogen, is also the most frequently retrieved species from persistently infected dental root canals, suggesting that the oral cavity is a possible reservoir for resistant strains. However, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for oral enterococci remains scarce. Here, we examined the AST profiles of 37 E. faecalis strains, including thirty-four endodontic isolates, two vanA-type vancomycin-resistant isolates, and the reference strain ATCC-29212. Using Etest gradient strips and established EUCAST standards, we determined minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for amoxicillin, vancomycin, clindamycin, tigecycline, linezolid, and daptomycin. Results revealed that most endodontic isolates were susceptible to amoxicillin and vancomycin, with varying levels of intrinsic resistance to clindamycin. Isolates exceeding the clindamycin MIC of the ATCC-29212 strain were further tested against last-resort antibiotics, with 7/27 exhibiting MICs matching the susceptibility breakpoint for tigecycline, and 1/27 reaching that of linezolid. Both vanA isolates confirmed vancomycin resistance and demonstrated resistance to tigecycline. In conclusion, while most endodontic isolates remained susceptible to first-line antibiotics, several displayed marked intrinsic clindamycin resistance, and MICs matched tigecycline’s breakpoint. The discovery of tigecycline resistance in vanA isolates highlights the propensity of clinical clone clusters to acquire multidrug resistance. Our results emphasize the importance of implementing AST strategies in dental practices for continued resistance surveillance.
“…To collect biomarkers non-invasively in the oral cavity, saliva is a central favourite medium to collect and study, due to its extreme ease at sampling and plethora of parameters to analyse, including high prediction microbiological and immunological biomarkers for dental caries and periodontal disease (Paqué et al, 2020(Paqué et al, , 2021, or qualitative detection of antibiotic resistance genes (Belibasakis et al, 2020). Saliva sampling may also conveniently replace the uncomfortable nasal or oropharyngeal sampling for select applications, such as SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection, with high specificity and sensitivity (Atieh et al, 2021).…”
Section: Local Biomarkers and Target Fluidsmentioning
The term biomarker has been defined as a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological and pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention (Atkinson & Colburn, 2001). The term is mainly used to describe a molecule collected from a biological fluid that is correlated to a specific condition, development of a condition or identification of the same. Hence, any type of study that identifies and correlates molecules from endodontic samples, such as biofilm components in symptomatic versus non-symptomatic cases (Loureiro et al., 2021) could be seen as biomarker research. Moreover, the term 'biomarker' is also used in the context of imaging, and describes a biological feature or set of features in a diagnostic image, that can then be analysed using specific algorithms (Smith et al., 2003). This is also beyond the scope of this text, but represents an interesting and timely
“…These molecular platforms enable a very rapid sampling-to-answer pipeline (i.e., within a patient session). Chair-side assays under development include molecular quantification of periodontal or cariogenic species [ 40 – 42 ] or the detection of antibiotic resistance genes [ 43 ] within oral samples.…”
Diagnosis and treatment in dentistry are based on clinical examination of the patients. Given that the major oral diseases are of microbial biofilm etiology, it can be expected that performing microbiological analysis on samples collected from the patient could deliver supportive evidence to facilitate the decision-making process by the clinician. Applicable microbiological methods range from microscopy, to culture, to molecular techniques, which can be performed easily within dedicated laboratories proximal to the clinics, such as ones in academic dental institutions. Periodontal and endodontic infections, along with odontogenic abscesses, have been identified as conditions in which applied clinical microbiology may be beneficial for the patient. Administration of antimicrobial agents, backed by microbiological analysis, can yield more predictable treatment outcomes in refractory or early-occurring forms of periodontitis. Confirming a sterile root canal using a culture-negative sample during endodontic treatment may ensure the longevity of its outcome and prevent secondary infections. Susceptibility testing of samples obtained from odontogenic abscesses may facilitate the selection of the appropriate antimicrobial treatment to prevent further spread of the infection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.