FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Equine cheek tooth extraction: Comparison of outcomes for fi...
Equine veterinary journal2019; 52(2); 181-186; doi: 10.1111/evj.13150

Equine cheek tooth extraction: Comparison of outcomes for five extraction methods.

Abstract: Post-operative complications are reported for all methods of equine cheek tooth extraction but not all methods carry the same risks. An outcome comparison for commonly used methods is needed so that clinicians can make informed treatment decisions. Objective: We conducted a side-by-side comparison of five cheek tooth extraction methods, comparing types and incidence of complications among oral extraction, tooth repulsion (three surgical approaches) and lateral buccotomy techniques. Methods: Retrospective clinical study using hospital medical records. Methods: Medical records of all horses undergoing cheek tooth extraction between 1997 and 2013 were reviewed. Logistic regression was used to determine the likelihood of various post-operative complications, comparing oral extraction, tooth repulsion by maxillary and mandibular trephination or maxillary sinus bone flap, and lateral buccotomy. Results: The study included 137 horses and 162 cheek teeth extractions. Oral extraction was successful in 71% of patients in which it was attempted. Oral extraction (n = 55) had the lowest incidence of complications (20%) and repulsion by sinus bone flap (n = 20) the highest (80%). Complication rates for repulsion by maxillary (n = 19) and mandibular trephination (n = 28), and extraction by lateral buccotomy (n = 15) were 42, 54 and 53%, respectively. Cheek tooth repulsion by sinus bone flap significantly increased the odds of damage to adjacent teeth, post-operative sinusitis, damage to alveolar bone, delayed alveolar granulation and orosinus fistulation. Repulsion by maxillary trephination significantly increased the odds of superficial incisional surgical site infection; and extraction by lateral buccotomy significantly increased the odds of facial nerve neuropraxia. Post-operative pyrexia was more common in all repulsion methods. Conclusions: Some clinically relevant differences may have been missed due to small group numbers in several categories. Conclusions: Oral extraction was associated with fewer post-operative complications than any other methods. Standing oral extraction remains the preferred choice, and recent surgical advances promise to further improve its success rate.
© 2019 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-07-30 PubMed ID: 31260572DOI: 10.1111/evj.13150Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research investigates the outcomes and complications arising from five different techniques of cheek tooth extraction in horses. The study concluded that the oral extraction method resulted in fewer post-surgical complications, making it the recommended method.

Research Methodology

  • The team conducted a retrospective clinical study that analyzed the medical records of horses which underwent cheek tooth extraction from 1997 to 2013.
  • The five methods compared in this study were oral extraction, tooth repulsion via maxillary trephination, tooth repulsion via mandibular trephination, tooth repulsion using a sinus bone flap, and lateral buccotomy.
  • Logistic regression was utilized to determine the probability of different post-operative complications depending on the extraction method used.

Study Findings

  • The study entailed 137 horses and 162 cheek teeth extractions altogether.
  • Through the oral extraction method, 71% of the attempts were successful.
  • The technique of oral extraction yielded the lowest incidence of complications at 20%, while the highest complication rate was seen with the sinus bone flap method at 80%.
  • The respective complication rates for tooth repulsion by maxillary trephination, tooth repulsion by mandibular trephination, and lateral buccotomy extraction were 42%, 54%, and 53%.
  • Certain complications were found to be more common with specific extraction methods. For example, repulsion by sinus bone flap significantly increased the odds of damage to adjacent teeth, post-operative sinusitis, damage to alveolar bone, delayed alveolar granulation and oro-sinus fistulation.
  • Repulsion by maxillary trephination was more likely to result in superficial incisional surgical site infections, and lateral buccotomy extraction significantly increased the odds of facial nerve neuropraxia.
  • Post-operative pyrexia was more common across all repulsion methods.

Conclusions

  • The research concluded that oral extraction was associated with fewer post-operative complications than any other methods, solidifying it as the preferred choice among clinicians.
  • However, the researchers emphasised that the study might have missed some clinically relevant differences due to the small group sizes for several categories.
  • Looking towards the future, the researchers anticipate that recent advancements in surgical techniques will further improve the success rate of oral extraction.

Cite This Article

APA
Caramello V, Zarucco L, Foster D, Boston R, Stefanovski D, Orsini JA. (2019). Equine cheek tooth extraction: Comparison of outcomes for five extraction methods. Equine Vet J, 52(2), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13150

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 52
Issue: 2
Pages: 181-186

Researcher Affiliations

Caramello, V
  • Department of Veterinary Science, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy.
Zarucco, L
  • Department of Veterinary Science, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy.
Foster, D
  • Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
Boston, R
  • Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
Stefanovski, D
  • Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, USA.
Orsini, J A
  • Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cheek
  • Equidae
  • Horse Diseases
  • Horses
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Tooth
  • Tooth Extraction / veterinary

Grant Funding

  • Spot Castle Memorial Fund
  • Università degli Studi di Torino

References

This article includes 24 references
  1. Dixon PM, Tremaine WH, Pickles K, Kuhns L, Hawe C, McCann J, McGorum BC, Railton DI, Brammer S. Equine dental disease Part 3: a long-term study of 400 cases: disorders of wear, traumatic damage and idiopathic fractures, tumours and miscellaneous disorders of the cheek teeth.. Equine Vet. J. 32, 9-18.
  2. Dixon PM, Tremaine WH, Pickles K, Kuhns L, Hawe C, McCann J, McGorum BC, Railton DI, Brammer S. Equine dental disease Part 4: a long-term study of 400 cases: apical infections of cheek teeth.. Equine Vet. J. 32, 182-194.
  3. Dixon PM, Gerard MP. Oral cavity and Salivary glands.. In: Equine Surgery, 5th edn., Eds: J. Auer, J. Stick, J. Kümmerle and T. Prange, Elsevier,St. Louis, MO. pp 440-474.
  4. Lane JG. Equine dental extraction: repulsion vs. lateral buccotomy, techniques and results.. Proc. World Vet. Dental Congress 5, 135-138.
  5. Tremaine WH, Schumacher J. Equine tooth removal (exodontia).. In: Equine Dentistry, 3rd edn., Eds: J. Easley, P.M. Dixon and J. Schumacher, Elsevier, Oxford. pp 319-344.
  6. Dixon PM, Dacre I, Dacre K, Tremaine WH, McCann J, Barakzai S. Standing oral extraction of cheek teeth in 100 horses (1998-2003).. Equine Vet. J. 37, 105-112.
  7. Quinn GC, Tremaine WH, Lane JG. Supernumerary cheek teeth (n = 24): clinical features, diagnosis, treatment and outcome in 15 horses.. Equine Vet. J. 37, 505-509.
  8. Dixon PM, Barakzai SZ, Collins NM, Yates J. Equine idiopathic cheek teeth fractures: Part 3: A hospital-based survey of 68 referred horses (1999-2005).. Equine Vet. J. 39, 327-332.
  9. Taylor L, Dixon PM. Equine idiopathic cheek teeth fractures: part 2: a practice-based survey of 147 affected horses in Britain and Ireland.. Equine Vet. J. 39, 322-326.
  10. Dixon PM, Hawkes C, Townsend N. Complications of equine oral surgery.. Vet. Clin. N. Am.: Equine Pract. 24, 499-514.
  11. Earley ET. How to identify potential complications associated with cheek-teeth extractions in the horse.. Proc. Am. Ass. Equine Practntrs. 56, 465-480.
  12. Tremaine WH, McCluskie LK. Removal of 11 incompletely erupted, impacted cheek teeth in 10 horses using a dental alveolar transcortical osteotomy and buccotomy approach.. Vet. Surg. 39, 884-890.
  13. Coomer RP, Fowke GS, McKane S. Repulsion of maxillary and mandibular cheek teeth in standing horses.. Vet. Surg. 40, 590-595.
  14. O'Neill HD, Boussauw B, Bladon BM, Fraser BS. Extraction of cheek teeth using a lateral buccotomy approach in 114 horses (1999-2009).. Equine Vet. J. 43, 348-353.
  15. Ramzan PH, Dallas RS, Palmer L. Extraction of fractured cheek teeth under oral endoscopic guidance in standing horses.. Vet. Surg. 40, 586-589.
  16. Rawlinson JE. Surgical approach to cheek tooth extraction.. Proc. ACVS Vet. Symp. 1522-527.
  17. Earley ET, Rawlinson JE, Baratt RM. Complications associated with cheek tooth extraction in the horse.. J. Vet. Dent. 30, 220-235.
  18. Stoll M. Minimally invasive transbuccal surgery and screw extraction.. Proc. Am. Ass. Equine Pract. Focus on Dentistry 170-177.
  19. Langeneckert F, Witte T, Schellenberger F, Czech C, Aebischer D, Vidondo B, Koch C. Cheek tooth extraction via a minimally invasive transbuccal approach and intradental screw placement in 54 equids.. Vet. Surg. 44, 1012-1020.
  20. Hawkins JF, Dallap BL. Lateral buccotomy for removal of a supernumerary cheek tooth in a horse.. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 211, 339-340.
  21. Freeman DE, Orsini PG, Ross MW, Madison JB. A large frontonasal bone flap for sinus surgery in the horse.. Vet. Surg. 19, 122-130.
  22. Quinn GC, Kidd JA, Lane JG. Modified frontonasal sinus flap surgery in standing horses: surgical findings and outcomes of 60 cases.. Equine Vet. J. 37, 138-142.
  23. Rice MK, Henry TJ. Standing intraoral extractions of cheek teeth aided by partial crown removal in 165 horses (2010-2016).. Equine Vet. J. 50, 48-53.
  24. Menzies RA, Easley J. Standing equine dental surgery.. Vet. Clin. N. Am.: Equine Pract. 30, 63-90.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,383 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.