ABSTRACT
Polymyxins are important therapeutic options for treating infections, mainly those caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Specific chemical characteristics of polymyxins make it difficult to perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing, especially within the clinical laboratory. Here we aimed to evaluate the performance of three phenotypic methods: Rapid NP Polymyxin Test, ColiSpot test and the SuperPolymyxin medium. To accomplish this, 170 non-duplicate clinical K. pneumoniae isolates were analysed (123 colistin-resistant and 47 susceptible). The sensitivity and specificity obtained for Rapid Polymyxin NP Test, Colispot and SuperPolymyxin medium were, respectively, 90% and 94%, 74% and 100%, and 82% and 85%. Very major errors occurred more frequently in low-level colistin-resistant isolates (MICs 4 and 8 µg/mL). Rapid Polymyxin NP proved to be a method capable of identifying colistin-resistant strains in acceptable categorical agreement. However, major errors and very major errors of this method were considered unacceptable for colistin-resistance screening. Although the Colispot test is promising and easy to perform and interpret, the results did not reproduce well in the isolates tested. The colistin-containing selective medium (SuperPolymyxin) showed limitations, including quantification of mucoid colonies and poor stability. Nevertheless, Colispot and SuperPolymyxin medium methods did not present acceptable sensitivity, specificity and categorical agreement. It is essential to use analytical tools that faithfully reproduce bacterial resistance in vitro, especially in last-line drugs, such as polymyxins, when misinterpretation of a test can result in therapeutic ineffectiveness.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate marginal seal, water sorption, solubility and loss of mass after brushing of several temporary filling materials. METHODOLOGY: For marginal seal, Class I cavities, including endodontic access preparations, were made in human molar teeth and restored using one or other of several temporary filling materials (n = 10): zinc oxide/calcium sulphate-based cement (Cavit, 3M,ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), zinc oxide/eugenol cement (IRM, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), glass ionomer cement (Vidrion R, SSWhite, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) or a dimethacrylate-based filling (Bioplic, Biodinâmica, Londrina, PR, Brazil). Dye penetration was assessed after thermocycling and immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsine solution. For water sorption, solubility and loss of mass analyses, disc-shaped specimens were made. Water sorption and solubility were evaluated by mass alteration after storage in distilled water for 7 days (n = 7). Loss of mass was calculated based on the difference of mass after abrasion with a toothbrush (n = 5), and surfaces were analysed by SEM. Data of water sorption, solubility and loss of mass were submitted to anova and Tukey's test, and marginal sealing data to Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed for marginal sealing (P < 0.0001), water sorption (P < 0.01), solubility (P < 0.01) and loss of mass (P < 0.05). Bioplic had the best marginal seal. Cavit had the greatest water sorption and solubility. Vidrion R and Bioplic had the lowest solubility. Loss of mass after brushing was higher for Cavit, followed by Bioplic, IRM and Vidrion R. Cavit and Vidrion R were worn aggressively by brushing. CONCLUSIONS: The resin-based temporary filling Bioplic produced the best marginal seal, and was associated with the lowest water sorption, solubility and loss of mass.
