Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsRetrospective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Surgical outcomes in canine lymphoplasmacytic stomatitis: a retrospective study of 42 dogs (2012-2022)

Ford J., Bell C., Donovan TA., Martel D.

Retrospective Study on Face & Skin, published in Front Vet Sci (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Retrospective Study
Journal
Front Vet Sci (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41445593
PMCID
PMC12723868
DOI
10.3389/fvets.2025.1681133

Abstract (original English)

Lymphoplasmacytic oral mucosal inflammation (stomatitis) in canine patients is common and non-specific. Contact lesions (CL) secondary to periodontal disease are particularly common. Dogs with CL may or may not have canine chronic ulcerative stomatitis (CCUS), yet clinicians are often faced with making treatment decisions without a clear diagnosis. Some may expect canine patients to be treated similarly to feline chronic gingivostomatitis patients, for whom partial- to full-mouth extractions remain the primary intervention. Because this assumption may lead to inappropriate care, clear recommendations for surgical management are needed for canine patients. This retrospective review (2012-2022) evaluated 42 dogs with lymphoplasmacytic stomatitis treated surgically at a dental specialty service. We hypothesized that only a minority of these patients require full-mouth exodontia. Patients were initially stratified as CL or CCUS based on lesion distribution and radiographic findings and reclassified based on treatment response. Clinical outcomes were categorized as complete, partial, or absent response to treatment(s), including COHAT, salvage exodontia, rescue medical management, chronic immunosuppression, and home oral hygiene. Associations between demographic and clinical variables with surgical and clinical endpoints were evaluated using descriptive statistics and chi-square ana

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research