3.8 Article

Antimicrobial susceptibility of major pathogens of orofacial odontogenic infections to 11 β-lactam antibiotics

Journal

ORAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 5, Pages 285-289

Publisher

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-302X.2002.170504.x

Keywords

antimicrobial susceptibility; orofacial odontogenic infections; beta-lactam antibiotics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we evaluated the current effectiveness of 11 beta-lactam antibiotics for treatment of orofacial odontogenic infections by determining the antimicrobial susceptibility of the major pathogens. The antimicrobial susceptibilities of viridans streptococci (n = 47), Peptostreptococcus (n = 67), Porphyromonas (n = 18), Fusobacterium (n = 57), black-pigmented Prevotella (n = 59) and non-pigmented Prevotella (n = 47) isolated from pus specimens of 93 orofacial odontogenic infections to penicillin G, cefmetazole, flomoxef, cefoperazone, cefoperazone/sulbactam, ceftazidime, cefpirome, cefepime, cefoselis, imipenem and faropenem were determined using the agar dilution method. Penicillin G, most cephalosporins, imipenem and faropenem worked well against viridans streptococci, Peptostreptococcus , Porphyromonas and Fusobacterium . Penicillin G and most cephalosporins, including fourth-generation agents, were not effective against beta-lactamase-positive Prevotella , though they were effective against beta-lactamase-negative strains. Cefmetazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and faropenem expressed powerful antimicrobial activity against beta-lactamase-positive Prevotella . In conclusion, penicillins have the potential to be first-line agents in the treatment of orofacial odontogenic infections. Most of the other beta-lactam antibiotics, including fourth-generation cephalosporins, were not found to have greater effectiveness than penicillins. In contrast, cefmetazole, cefoperazone/sulbactam, imipenem and faropenem were found to have greater effectiveness than penicillins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available