Periapical Curettage: An Alternative Surgical Approach to Infected Mandibular Cheek Teeth in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an alternative surgical method for treating periapical infection of the mandibular cheek teeth of horses. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: Eleven horses (3-13 years) with periapical mandibular tooth infection. METHODS: Hospital records (1992-2002) of horses that had periapical curettage for the treatment of mandibular cheek tooth root infection were retrieved. Clinical signs, radiographic, and surgical reports were reviewed. Outcome was obtained by telephone questionnaire for 7 horses and by physical examination in 2. RESULTS: Eleven horses (14 infected mandibular molariform teeth) had periapical curettage. Two horses were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was 41 months; 2 horses had subsequent tooth repulsion, 7 (78%) horses healed completely although 2 horses still had some local mandibular swelling. CONCLUSION: Periapical curettage, which allows alveolar drainage, appears to be a viable treatment option for periapical infections of equine mandibular cheek teeth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Periapical curettage can be performed simply, without expensive imaging or surgical equipment, and thus is useful for both referral and first opinion practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".