In more than half of the treated patients the second molars failed to erupt into a proper position. The most common treatment given (extraction of the second molar) was the least successful.

Objective: To evaluate treatment outcome in patients with second molar impaction and retention. Materials and Methods: A total of 135 second molars, 65 in the maxilla and 70 in the mandible were collected from 87 patients (45 girls and 42 boys) with a mean age of 15 years (range: 11-19 years). Available patient records, x-rays, study casts, and photos were studied. The mean follow-up period was 22 months (range: 4-106 months). Results: A total of 166 second molars were diagnosed as impacted, 24 as primary and 5 as secondarily retained; 80% of the second molars were orthodontically or surgically treated. In more than half of the treated patients the second molars failed to erupt into a proper position. Surgical exposure of the retained or impacted second molar was the treatment found most successful (71%). The least successful treatment (11%) used the third molar to replace the second molar after the second molar was extracted. No clear difference in treatment outcome could be detected between the impacted and the primary or secondary retained teeth. However, a clear difference was found between the impacted and the primary retained second molars regarding treatment strategy: 9% of the impacted and 67% of the primary retained teeth were left untreated. Dental crowding was found in 70% of the patients. Conclusion: In more than half of the treated patients the second molars failed to erupt into a proper position. The most common treatment given (extraction of the second molar) was the least successful. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:422-427.)

BackgroundPeriodic lack of availability and high cost of commercially produced isotonic fluids for intravenous (IV) use in horses have increasingly led to use of home‐made or commercially compound fluids by veterinarians. Data regarding the quality control and safety of compounded fluids would be of benefit to equine veterinarians.ObjectivesTo compare electrolyte concentrations, sterility, and endotoxin contamination of commercially available fluids to 2 forms of compounded isotonic crystalloid fluids intended for IV use in horses.MethodsProspective study. Two methods of preparing compounded crystalloids formulated to replicate commercial Plasma‐Lyte A (Abbott, Chicago, IL) were compared. One formulation was prepared by a hand‐mixed method involving chlorinated drinking water commonly employed by equine practitioners, and the other was prepared by means of ingredients obtained from a commercial compounding pharmacy. The variables for comparison were electrolyte concentrations, sterility, and presence of endotoxin contamination.ResultsElectrolyte concentrations were consistent within each product but different between types of fluids (P < 0.0001). Hand‐mixed fluids had significantly more bacterial contamination compared to commercial Plasma‐Lyte A (P = 0.0014). One of the hand‐mixed fluid samples had detectable endotoxin contamination.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceChlorinated drinking water is not an acceptable source of water to compound isotonic fluids for IV administration. Equine practitioners should be aware of this risk and obtain the informed consent of their clients.