Susceptibilities of Candida albicans Mouth Isolates to Antifungal Agents, Essentials Oils and Mouth Rinses
- 465 Downloads
Forty Candida albicans strains isolated from patient’s mouth with fixed orthodontic appliances were analyzed to their susceptibilities to antifungal agents, mouth rinses and essential oils. Susceptibility to fluconazole, econazole, miconazole and ketoconazole, amphotericin B and nystatin was assessed by the disk diffusion (DD) method based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M44-A protocol, and by Etest (fluconazole and amphotericin B). The susceptibilities to mouth rinses and essential oils were also determined by the DD technique. All isolates tested were susceptible (S) to amphotericin B, nystatin and fluconazole. The overall concordance between the DD and the Etest was 100% for amphotericin and fluconazole. One isolate was resistant to econazole (2.5%) and the other to ketoconazole (2.5%). Econazole and ketoconazole had the highest percentages of susceptible dose dependent (SDD), 55 and 95%, respectively. Regarding to the susceptibility isolates profile, seven phenotypes were detected, and the 3 more represented (90% of the isolates) of them were SDD to one, two or three azoles. The study of mouth rinses showed a high variability of efficacy against C. albicans. The results showed that the isolates susceptibility to essential oils differed (P < 0.05). The profile activity was: cinnamon > laurel > mint > eucalyptus > rosemary > lemon > myrrh > tangerine. The main finding was that the susceptibility to cinnamon and laurel varied among the three more representative antifungal phenotypes (P < 0.05). The susceptibility of econazole-SDD isolates to cinnamon and lemon was higher than those of the econazole-S yeasts (P < 0.05). In contrast, econazole-SDD isolates were less affected by laurel than econazole-S counterparts (P < 0.05).
KeywordsCandida albicans Susceptibility Antifungal Essential oils Mouth rinses
The authors wish to thank to the patients of a dental clinic for their prompt availability and patience in participating this survey.
- 1.Farias N, Buffon M, Cini R. In vitro evaluation of antifungal action of chlorhexidine digluconate and nystatin on the growing control of Candida albicans. Visão Acadêmica Curitiba. 2003;4:83–8.Google Scholar
- 4.Odds F. Candida and Candidosis. In: Odds F, editor. Factors that predispose the host to candidosis. 2nd ed. London: Bailiière Tindal; 1988. p. 71–4.Google Scholar
- 11.Hiom SJ, Furr JR, Russel AD, Dickinson JR. Effects of chlorhexidine diacetate on Candida albicans, C. glabrata and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Appl Bacteriol. 1992;72:35–40.Google Scholar
- 18.Kurtzman CP, Fell JW. The yeasts: a taxonomic study. 4th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998.Google Scholar
- 21.NCCLS. Method for antifungal disk diffusion susceptibility testing for yeasts. Approved Guideline NCCLS Document M44-A. Pennsylvania; 2004.Google Scholar
- 24.StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 9.1. www.statsoft.com; 2010.
- 33.Giuliana G, Pizzo G, Milici E, Giangreco R. In vitro study of antimicrobial agents against Candida species. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1999;1:44–9.Google Scholar
- 37.Abdel-Mallek AY, Bagy MMK, Hasan HAH. The in vitro anti-yeast activity of some essential oils. J Islam Acad Sci. 1994;7:10–2.Google Scholar
- 47.Farag RS, Daw ZY, Hewedi FM, El-Baroty GSA. Antimicrobial activity of some Egyptian spice essential oils. J Food Prot. 1989;52:665–7.Google Scholar