Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411624EnglishN2024December28Healthcare
A Cephalometric Study for Evaluation and Comparison of the Cranial Base Angles and Cranial Base Length and the Effective Maxillary and Mandibular Lengths in Class I, Class II, and Class II Subdivision Malocclusion among Male and Female Adults in Kundrathur Population
English0109Parvathi KEnglish M.C. SainathEnglish Navaneetha NambiEnglish Vivekanandan UEnglish Lasington RayenEnglish
Introduction: The relationship between malocclusions and skeletal morphology is a popular topic of maxillofacial developmental research. As one of the most common diagnostic records is the cephalogram, the relationship among cranial base angle, cranial base length, maxilla, and mandible can easily be determined. Using Steiner’s cephalometric analysis, malocclusions can be easily classified by ANB angle.
Materials and Methods: A total of 60 cephalograms (30% males and 30% females) were available for the present study). The inclusion criteria were patients with Natives of Kundrathur.
Results: The mean maxillary length and mandibular length was highest among the study subjects of Class I malocclusion.
Conclusion: Sexual dimorphism was statistically significant as the males have increased maxillary length, and mandibular length than females.
Key Words: Class I, Class II & class II subdivision malocclusion Cranial base angle, Cranial base length, Mandibular length, Maxillary length
Englishhttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4832http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4832
1.Jacobson A. Steiner Analysis. In: Jacobson A editors. Radiographic cephalometry: From Basics to Video imaging. Q P Co.
In. 199; p 77-86
2. Aghi mien OA. A cephalometric evaluation of midface and mandibular effective lengths and the maxillomandibular differentials in children with Down syndrome in Benin City. Nigeria. J Paediatric Dental Research Practise. 2020; 1(1&2):14-21
3. Kasai K, Moro T, Kanazawa E, Iwasawa T. Relationship between cranial base and maxillofacial morphology. EJO. 1995;17(5): 403-410
4. Steiner C. Cephalometrics for class II patients. AJO-DO. 1953;39(10): 729-755
5. Baik CY, Ververidou M. A new approach of assessing sagittal discrepancy: The Beta angle. AJO DO. 2004; 126:100–5
6. Rolf Bjehi. A Comparison Between the Frankfort Horizontal and the Sella Turcica -Nasion as Reference Planes in Cephalometric Analysis. ASDR.1957; 15:1:1-12
7. Heerva E, Peltonen S, Pirttiniemi P, Happonen RP, Isnapur V, Peltonen J. A Short mandible, maxilla, and cranial base are common in patients with neurofibromatosis. EJOS. 2011; 119: 121- 127
8. Sidhu SS, Sundaram KR. A Cephalometric profile of Aryo Dravidians. JIOS. 1989; 20:90-94.
9. McNamara JA. A Method of Cephalometric Evaluation. AJO DO. 1984 86:6:449-69.
10. Fouda AM, Nassar EA, Hammad YM. McNamara’s Cephalometric Norms of Egyptian Children. Egyptian Dent J. 2017;
63:2923-2929
11. Rezk, ER: A comparative cephalometric study of Mongoloid and non-Mongoloid children, Master’s thesis, University of
Michigan. 1964;889-14
12. Brown, RH, and Cunningham VM. Some dental manifestations of Mongolism. Oral Surg .1961; 14: 664-676
13. John K.K. Indian cephalometric Norms. I O C, Vellore. 1987;225-36
14. Anil Kudchadkar and Jayade V.P. Cranio facial morphology of an ethnic Tibetan population - A cephalometric evaluation. I OS.1997; 30; 23
15. Shivaratna S.: Indian Cephalometric Norms (text) published by LO.C., Vellore, 1987
16. Yadav AO, Walia CS, Borle RM, Chaoji KH, Rajan R, Data rkar AN. Cephalometric norms for Central Indian population using Burstone and Legan analysis. IJDR. 2011; 22:28-33.
17. Trivedi K, Singh S, Shiva Murthy D M, Doshi J. Analysis cephalometric for orthognathic surgery: Determination of norms applicable to Rajasthani population. NJMS .2010; 1:102-7.
18. K. V. Arunkumar, Viveka Vardhan Reddy, David P. Tauro. Establishment of Cephalometric Norms for the South Indian (Karnataka) Population Based on Burstone’s Analysis. JMOS. 2010; 9(2): 127–133
19. Downs WB. Analysis of the Dentofacial Profile. The Angle Orthod. 1956; 26:4:191-212.
20. Broadbent BH. A new x-ray technique. Angle Orthod .1931; 1: 45-66
21. Bjork A. Cranial base development. AJO-DO.1955;41
22. Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norta LA. Cephalometric for orthognathic surgery. JOS. April 1978; 36:
269-77
23. Flynn TR, Ambrogio RI, Zeichner SJ. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery in Black American adults. JOMS. 1989; 47: 30-38.
24. Satinder Pal Singh, Ashok Kumar Utreja, and Ashok Kumar Jena. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery for North Indian population. CCD. 2013; 4(4): 460–466
25. Dr. Shaji T Varghese. The average anterior cranial base length, maxillary length, and mandibular length among male and female adults in Kerala population. ISSN. 2022; 2279-0861
26. Alves P, Mazzuchelli J, Pravin K, Bolognese AM. Cranial base angulation in Brazilian patients seeking orthodontic treatment. J CS.2008; 19: 334- 338.
27. Dinesh R, Relationship of Angular and Linear Measurements Between Cranial Base and Jaw Base in Subjects with Skeletal Class-I, Class-II And Class-III Malocclusion – A Cephalometric Study. IOSR-JDMS. 2017; 16: 63-70
28. Hopkin GB, Houston WJ, James G. The cranial base as an aetiological factor in malocclusion. AO. 1968; 38:250-5
Radiance Research AcademyInternational Journal of Current Research and Review2231-21960975-52411624EnglishN2024December28Healthcare
Establishing Correlation between Antibiotic Resistance Patterns and Phylogenetic Groups of Multi Drug Resistant Escherichia coli.
English1017Mandar Anil KarkhanisEnglish Shrikrishna A JoshiEnglish Nagesh N MalikEnglish
Introduction: Escherichia coli remains the most common cause of urinary tract infections (UTIs). They account for over 80-90% of all community-acquired and 30-50% of all hospital-acquired UTIs. E. coli strains have been found to belong to evolutionary origins known as phylogenetic groups. In 2000, Clermont classified E. coli strains into four phylogenetic groups using the triplex PCR method. The aim of this study was to identify the distribution of the phylogenetic groups amongst E. colistrains using triplex PCR method and to ascertain the antibiotic resistance profile amongst the phylogenetic groups.
Methods: In this study, 108 stored E.coli isolates from Dr. Joshi’s Central Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Vashi, Navi Mumbai were subjected to phylogenetic grouping by a triplex PCR method. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was performed by disk diffusion method according to Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Phenotypic detection of multi-drug resistant strains of E. coli based on AST data was performed.
Results: All 108 E. coli isolates were found to be multi-drug resistant (MDR). Phylogenetic group B2 (66.67%) was the most predominant, followed by A(15.74%), B1 (12.96%) and D (3.7%). Antibiotic resistance was mainly detected in phylogenetic group B2 (54%). All E. coliphylogenetic groups (B2, A, B1 and D) showed highest sensitivity to carbapenems (imipenem and meropenem) followed by members of aminoglycosides. Phylogenetic groups B2 and B1 recorded sensitivity to some members of fluoroquinolones and cotrimoxazole which was completely absent in group A and D. Majority of the groups exhibited complete resistance to beta-lactams and cephalosporins.
Conclusion: Our findings showed the high prevalence of MDR E.coli isolates, with the dominance of phylogenetic group B2. Phylogenetic groups B2 and B1 and A and D showed similar antibioticresistant profiles.
EnglishMDR, AST, AMR, Phylogenetic, ExPEC, PCRhttp://ijcrr.com/abstract.php?article_id=4833http://ijcrr.com/article_html.php?did=4833
1. Curova K, Slebodnikova R, Kmetova M, Hrabovsky V, Maruniak M, Liptakova E, et al. Virulence, phylogenetic background and antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli associated with extraintestinal infections. J Infect Public Health. 2020;(10):1537- 1543. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.032.
2. Bakhtiari S, Mahmoudi H, Seftjani SK, Amirzargar MA, Ghiasvand S, Ghaffari ME, et al. Antibiotic resistance pattern and phylogenetic groups of the uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolates from urinary tract infections in Hamedan, west of Iran. Iran J Microbiol. 2020;12 (5):388-394. doi: 10.18502/ijm.v12i5.4598.
3. Ku JH, Bruxvoort KJ, Salas SB, Varley CD, Casey JA, Raphael E, et al. Multidrug Resistance of Escherichia coli From Outpatient Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in a Large United States Integrated Healthcare Organization. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023; (7):ofad287. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad287
4. GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990-2021: a systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. 2024; 404(10459):1199-1226. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01867-1
5. Clermont O, Bonacorsi S, Bingen E. Rapid and simple determination of the Escherichia coli phylogenetic group. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66(10):4555-8. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.10.4555-4558.2000.
6. Bernaitis L, Bharathi P, Ezhilarasu A, Revathi P Shenoy, Isolation and molecular characterization of multi-drug resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli from urine samples: Insights into urinary tract infection management, The Microbe. 2024; (5):100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microb.2024.100185.
7. Fozia F, Nasir N, Mubashir H, Abdul W, Zia U, Mushtaq A, et al. Prevalence of Quinolone Resistance Genes gyrA and gyrB in Bacteria Isolated from Urinary Tract Infections. IJCRR. 2022; 14(15):1-9.doi:10.31782/IJCRR.2022.141505
8. Kara A, Massaro C, Giammanco GM, Alduina R, Boussoualim N. Phylogenetic Diversity, Antibiotic Resistance, and Virulence of Escherichia coli Strains from Urinary Tract Infections in Algeria. Antibiotics. 2024;1 3(8):773. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13080773
9. Kumar G, Kumar Y, Kumar G, Tahlan AK. Characterization of uropathogenic E. coli from various geographical locations in India. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2023;18(6):1527-1535. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2023.07.003.
10. Thangavelu S, Dhandapani R, Arulprakasam A, Paramasivam R, Chinnathambi A, Ali Alharbi S, et al. Isolation, Identification, Characterization, and Plasmid Profile of Urinary Tract Infectious Escherichia coli from Clinical Samples. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022:7234586. doi: 10.1155/2022/7234586.
11. Malik S, Rana JS, Nehra K. Prevalence and Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern of Uropathogenic Escherichia Coli Strains in Sonipat Region of Haryana in India. BBRJ. 2021;5(1):80-87. doi: 10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_212_20
12. Chakraborty A, Saralaya V, Adhikari P, Shenoy S, Baliga S, Hegde A. Characterization of Escherichia coli Phylogenetic Groups Associated with Extraintestinal Infections in South Indian Population. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015;5(4):241-6. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.160192.
13. Wang MC, Fan YH, Zhang YZ, Bregente CJB, Lin WH, Chen CA, et al. Characterization of uropathogenic Escherichia coli phylogroups associated with antimicrobial resistance, virulence factor distribution, and virulence-related phenotypes. Infect Genet Evol. 2023;114:105493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meegid.2023.105493.
14. Yazdanpour Z, Tadjrobehkar O, Shahkhah M. Significant association between genes encoding virulence factors with antibiotic resistance and phylogenetic groups in community acquired uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolates. BMC Microbiol. 2020;20:241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01933-1
15. Alfinete NW, Bolukaoto JY, Heine L, Potgieter N, Barnard TG. Virulence and phylogenetic analysis of enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from children with diarrhoea in South Africa. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;14:226-232. doi: 10.1016/j. ijid.2021.11.017.
16. Katongole P, Nalubega F, Florence NC, Asiimwe B, Andia I. Biofilm formation, antimicrobial susceptibility and virulence genes of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli isolated from clinical isolates in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):453. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05186-1.
17. Agarwal J, Srivastava S, Singh M. Pathogenomics of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2012;30(2):141-9. doi: 10.4103/0255-0857.96657.
18. Rijavec M, Müller-Premru M, Zakotnik B, Žgur-Bertok D. Virulence factors and biofilm production among Escherichia coli strains causing bacteraemia of urinary tract origin. J Med. Microbiol. 2008;57:1329-1334. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.2008/002543- 0.
19. Baldiris-Avila R, Montes-Robledo A, Buelvas-MontesY. Phylogenetic Classification, Biofilm-Forming Capacity, Virulence Factors, and Antimicrobial Resistance in Uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC). Curr Microbiol. 2020;77:3361–3370. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00284-020-02173-2
20. Park JH, Bae KS, Kang J, Park ER, Yoon JK. Comprehensive Study of Antibiotic Resistance in Enterococcus spp.: Comparison of Influents and Effluents of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Antibiotics. 2024;13(11):1072. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13111072.
21. Sacher-Pirklbauer A, Klein-Jobstl D, Sofka D, Blanc-Potard A.-B, & Hilbert, F. Phylogenetic Groups and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Escherichia coli from Different Meat Species. Antibiotics. 2021;10(12):1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121543
22. El-Mahdy R, Mahmoud R, Shrief R. Characterization of E. coli Phylogroups Causing Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:3183-3193. doi: 10.2147/IDR. S325770.
23. Halaji M, Fayyazi A, Rajabnia M, Zare D, Pournajaf A, Ranjbar, R. Phylogenetic Group Distribution of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli and Related Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022;12:790184. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.790184.
24. Shariff V A AR, Shenoy MS, Yadav T, Radhakrishna M. The antibiotic susceptibility patterns of uropathogenic Escherichia coli,with special reference to the fluoroquinolones. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;(6):1027-30. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/4917.3038.