4.6 Article

Antimicrobial resistance in the subgingival microflora in patients with adult periodontitis - A comparison between The Netherlands and Spain

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 79-86

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027002079.x

关键词

adult periodontitis; antimicrobial; resistance; microflora; antibiotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The widespread use of antibiotics for prophylaxis and treatment of bacterial infections has lead to the emergence of resistant human pathogens. Great differences have been documented between European countries in the use of systemic antibiotics. In parallel, significant differences in levels of resistant pathogens have been documented. Aim: To investigate whether differences in antibiotic use influence the level of antimicrobial resistance of the subgingival microflora of untreated patients with adult periodontitis in The Netherlands and Spain. Method: Blood agar plates containing breakpoint concentrations of penicillin, amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavunalate, metronidazole, erythromycin, azithromycin, clindamycin and tetracycline were used to determine the proportion of bacteria from the subgingival plaque that was resistant to these antibiotics. In the Spanish patients, statistically significant higher mean levels of resistance were found for penicillin, amoxicillin, metronidazole, clindamycin and tetracycline. The mean number of different bacterial species growing on the selective plates was higher in the Spanish patients, as was the % of resistant strains of most periodontal pathogens. A striking difference was observed in the frequency of occurrence of tetracycline-resistant periodontal pathogens. In Spain, 5 patients had greater than or equal to 3 tetracycline resistant periodontal pathogens, whereas this was not observed in any of the Dutch patients. Conclusions: The widespread use of antibiotics in Spain is reflected in the level of resistance of the subgingival microflora of adult patients with periodontitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据