Evidence Hub

Microbiological analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing moxifloxacin and clindamycin in the treatment of odontogenic infiltrates and abscesses

Sobottka I, Wegscheider K, Balzer L, Böger RH, Hallier O, Giersdorf I, Streichert T, Haddad M et al.

Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2012

71 participants

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify the oral pathogens found in odontogenic infections, to determine their susceptibilities to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMC), clindamycin (CLI), doxycycline (DOX), levofloxacin (LVX), moxifloxacin (MXF), and penicillin (PEN), and to search for associations between specific pathogens and types of infection. Swabs from patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind phase II trial comparing MXF with CLI for the treatment of odontogenic abscesses or inflammatory infiltrates were cultured on media for aerobes and anaerobes. All bacterial isolates were identified at the species level. Overall, 205 isolates were cultured from 71 patients: 77 viridans group streptococci, 56 Prevotella spp., 19 Neisseria spp., 17 Streptococcus anginosus group isolates and hemolytic streptococci, 15 other anaerobes, and 21 other bacteria. Ninety-eight percent of pathogens were susceptible to MXF, 96% to AMC, 85% to LVX, 67% to PEN, 60% to CLI, and 50% to DOX. S. anginosus group and hemolytic streptococci were found significantly more frequently (P = 0.04) in patients with abscesses (12/95) than in patients with infiltrates (5/110). In four patients with infiltrates who failed to respond to CLI therapy, three isolates of the Streptococcus mitis group and four Neisseria spp. resistant to CLI were found. In this study, S. anginosus group and hemolytic streptococci were clearly associated with odontogenic abscesses. Our analysis suggests that viridans group…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 71 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free