Wissame Mazari1,2, Zahia Boucherit-Otmani1, Imad Abdelhamid El Haci3, Amine Ilahi2, Kebir Boucherit4. 1. Laboratoire Antibiotiques Antifongiques: Physico-Chimique, Synthèse et Activité Biologique, Département de Biologie, Université Abou Bekr Belkaid, Tlemcen, Algérie. 2. Laboratoire de Mycologie Médicale, Hôpital de la Timone, Université Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France. 3. Centre de Recherche Scientifique et Technique en Analyses Physico-Chimiques, CRAPC, Tipaza, Algérie. 4. Centre Universitaire Elhadj Bouchaïb, Ain Témouchent, Algérie.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of yeasts in dental chair unit waterlines (DCUWLs) and to test their ability to form biofilms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen dental waterlines were analysed by culture in liquid Sabouraud in order to allow the quantification and the purification of isolated yeasts from their internal surfaces. All isolates were identified by standard laboratory procedures, including CHROMagar Candida medium for orientation, commercial yeast identification system Api Candida, MALDI-TOF MS and DNA sequencing. To evaluate their kinetics of antifungal susceptibility during different phases of biofilm formation, these yeasts were subjected to three antifungal agents. RESULTS: From the 18 DCUWLs studied, 10 were altered (55.56%). Eleven strains of Candida sp. [Candida albicans (2), Candida guilliermondii (5) and Candida glabrata (4)] and two species of non-Candida; Rhodotorula spp. (1) and Trichosporon spp. (2) were identified. The majority of yeasts in planktonic form were susceptible to amphotericin B, caspofungin and voriconazole, except C. albicans was resistant to voriconazole. In the biofilm form, caspofungin was the most effective antifungal agent for all isolated strains. For the other antifungal agents, sessile cells were resistant. CONCLUSION: Several types of yeasts were identified; the most frequently isolated genus was Candida. The majority of these yeasts had the ability to form biofilms and resisted antifungal agents used in this study.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of yeasts in dental chair unit waterlines (DCUWLs) and to test their ability to form biofilms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen dental waterlines were analysed by culture in liquid Sabouraud in order to allow the quantification and the purification of isolated yeasts from their internal surfaces. All isolates were identified by standard laboratory procedures, including CHROMagar Candida medium for orientation, commercial yeast identification system Api Candida, MALDI-TOF MS and DNA sequencing. To evaluate their kinetics of antifungal susceptibility during different phases of biofilm formation, these yeasts were subjected to three antifungal agents. RESULTS: From the 18 DCUWLs studied, 10 were altered (55.56%). Eleven strains of Candida sp. [Candida albicans (2), Candida guilliermondii (5) and Candida glabrata (4)] and two species of non-Candida; Rhodotorula spp. (1) and Trichosporon spp. (2) were identified. The majority of yeasts in planktonic form were susceptible to amphotericin B, caspofungin and voriconazole, except C. albicans was resistant to voriconazole. In the biofilm form, caspofungin was the most effective antifungal agent for all isolated strains. For the other antifungal agents, sessile cells were resistant. CONCLUSION: Several types of yeasts were identified; the most frequently isolated genus was Candida. The majority of these yeasts had the ability to form biofilms and resisted antifungal agents used in this study.
Authors: Analy S Melo; Fernando C Bizerra; Edna Freymüller; Beth A Arthington-Skaggs; Arnaldo L Colombo Journal: Med Mycol Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 4.076
Authors: G Kovacicova; J Hanzen; M Pisarcikova; D Sejnova; J Horn; R Babela; I Svetlansky; M Lovaszova; M Gogova; V Krcmery Journal: J Infect Chemother Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 2.211
Authors: M A Pfaller; D J Diekema; M Mendez; C Kibbler; P Erzsebet; S-C Chang; D L Gibbs; V A Newell Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Gordon Ramage; Anto Jose; Leighann Sherry; David F Lappin; Brian Jones; Craig Williams Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 5.191