4.0 Review

Antimicrobial resistance in patients with endodontic infections: A systematic scoping review of observational studies

Journal

AUSTRALIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages 386-395

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aej.12680

Keywords

antibiotic resistance; apical periodontitis; endodontic; infections; microorganisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and proportions of antimicrobial-resistant species in patients with endodontic infections. The findings showed that certain species exhibited high levels of resistance to commonly used antimicrobial drugs.
The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and proportions of antimicrobial-resistant species in patients with endodontic infections. A systematic scoping review of scientific evidence was accomplished involving different databases. Nine investigations were selected including 651 patients. Enterococcus faecalis was resistant to tetracycline (30%-70%), clindamycin (100%), erythromycin (10%-20%), ampicillin (9%) and azithromycin (60%). On the contrary, Prevotella spp., Fusobacterium spp., Peptostreptococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. were resistant to penicillin, tetracycline, doxycycline, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin, erythromycin, metronidazole and clindamycin in different proportions. Fusobacterium nucleatum showed high resistance to amoxicillin, amoxicillin plus clavulanate and erythromycin. Prevotella oralis presented a predisposition to augment its resistance to clindamycin over time. Tanerella forsythia exhibited resistance to ciprofloxacin and rifampicin. Lactococcus lactis presented robust resistance to cephalosporins, metronidazole, penicillin, amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. It was observed high levels of resistance to antimicrobials that have been utilised in the local and systemic treatment of oral cavity infections.

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