Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Crown shortening in Greenland sled dogs often causes tooth pulp
By Kortegaard, H E et al.·Published in The Journal of small animal practice·2015·Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Consequences of crown shortening canine teeth in Greenland sled dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of Greenland sled dogs had their canine teeth shortened at a young age, and many of them developed serious dental issues. In fact, 91.7% of the dogs with shortened teeth had pulp exposure, which can lead to infections and other complications. This was much higher compared to only 21.3% in dogs whose teeth were not shortened. The study found that dogs with pulp exposure had an 82.4% chance of developing further dental problems. It's important for owners of sled dogs with shortened teeth to have regular dental check-ups to prevent these serious issues.
People also search for: Greenland sled dog dental problems · canine tooth pulp exposure · dog dental care after tooth shortening
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the consequences of crown shortening, focusing on the prevalence of pulp exposure and periapical pathology in Greenland sled dogs that had had their canine crowns shortened at an early age. METHODS: Five cadaver heads and 54 sled dogs underwent an oral examination for dental fractures and pulp exposure of canines. All canines were radiographed and evaluated for periapical pathology. RESULTS: The prevalence of canine pulp exposure in 12 (5 heads and 7 dogs) crown shortened dogs was 91 · 7%, and 21 · 3% in 47 not-crown shortened dogs. A significant (P < 0 · 001) risk of pulp exposure of the canines in the crown shortened group compared to the not-crown shortened group was seen with a relative risk of 4 · 3 on a dog basis and a relative risk of 12 · 2 on a tooth basis. In dogs with pulp exposure of canines (n = 51) the prevalence of periapical pathology was 82 · 4%, but only 0 · 8% in dogs without pulp exposure (n = 133) resulting in a significant (relative risk, 109 · 5; P < 0 · 001) risk of periapical pathology in teeth with pulp exposure compared to teeth without pulp exposure. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The high risk of periapical pathology observed in teeth with pulp exposure confirms that these teeth should not be neglected in affected dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583553/