4.0 Article

Air-borne microbial contamination of surfaces in a UK dental clinic

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENERAL AND APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 195-203

Publisher

MICROBIOL RES FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.2323/jgam.54.195

Keywords

air-borne microbes; antibiotic resistance; cross-infection; dental clinics; settle plates

Funding

  1. Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust
  2. UCLH/UCL
  3. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little is known about the number, type, or antibiotic resistance profiles, of air-borne microbes present in hospital settings yet such information is important in designing effective measures to reduce cross-infection. In this study settle plates were used to identify and quantify the air-borne microbes present in a dental clinic. All isolates were identified to species level using partial 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing and their susceptibility to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, gentamicin, penicillin, tetracycline or vancomycin was performed. The mean numbers of viable bacteria detected for each sampling occasion during periods of clinical activity and in the absence of such activity were 21.9x10(2) cfu/m(2)/h and 2.3x10(2) cfu/m(2)/h respectively. One hundred ninety-three distinct colony morphotypes, comprising 73 species, were isolated during the study and 48% of these were resistant to at least one antibiotic. The mean numbers of different morphotypes detected per sampling occasion were 14.3 and 5 during periods of clinical activity and inactivity respectively. Propionibacterium acnes, Micrococcus luteus and Staphylococcus epidermidis were frequently isolated regardless of whether any clinical activities were taking place. These findings highlight the importance of preventing surfaces from becoming reservoirs of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and thereby contributing to cross-infection in the dental clinic.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available