ArticleInternational dental journal2018
Risk assessment for the spread of Candida sp. in dental chair unit waterlines using molecular techniques.
Article in International dental journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial resistance in dental unit waterlines: a scoping review of microbial diversity, resistance patterns, and knowledge gaps.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Mycobiology of Dental Unit Water: A Systematic Scoping Review.International dental journal · 2025Article
- Construction of ZnO/PCL Antibacterial Coating Potentially for Dental Unit Waterlines.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Host-microbiome interactions regarding peri-implantitis and dental implant loss.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Review
- Distinct Microbial Community of Accumulated Biofilm in Dental Unit Waterlines of Different Specialties.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Microbial Contamination of Dental Unit Waterlines and Potential Risk of Infection: A Narrative Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility testing of Pucciniomycotina red yeast clinical isolates from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe 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
methodsEighteen 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.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionSeveral 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.