Long-term outcome of treatment of dental abscesses with a wound-packing technique in pet rabbits: 13 cases (1998–2007)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and treatment outcome of a minimal surgical debridement and antimicrobial-impregnated gauze packing technique for treatment of dental abscesses in rabbits. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. ANIMALS: 13 rabbits with 14 dental abscesses. PROCEDURES: Medical records of pet rabbits with dental abscesses were reviewed. Rabbits that underwent a wound-packing treatment protocol with a follow-up period of > 6 months were included. Pretreatment evaluation included physical examination, skull radiography, CBC and plasma biochemical profile, and an endoscopically guided dental examination. The surgical procedure consisted of lancing the abscess, cleaning the cavity, minimal debridement, and packing with strips of synthetic gauze impregnated with a selected antimicrobial. Purulent material from abscesses was submitted for bacterial culture. The procedure was repeated weekly until abscess resolution. Rabbits also received systemic treatment with antimicrobials. RESULTS: Rabbit ages ranged from 1 to 5 years. Anaerobic bacteria were cultured from 6 abscesses and aerobic bacteria from 5; no bacteria were cultured from 4 abscesses. Antimicrobials most commonly used in packing procedures were ampicillin and clindamycin; trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole with metronidazole and azithromycin were given most often for systemic treatment. Thirteen of 14 abscesses resolved, and rabbits were followed for a mean ± SD period of 32.6 ± 24.3 months. Number of packing procedures used to obtain resolution of infection was 4.8 ± 2.2. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Minimal surgical debridement followed by antimicrobial-impregnated gauze packing of the abscess cavity is an effective and practical option for the long-term resolution of dental abscesses in rabbits when combined with systemic treatment with appropriate antimicrobials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".