DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2009.00769.
Prevalence of Demodex canis-positive healthy dogs at
trichoscopic examination
Alessandra Fondati*, Michela De Lucia*,†, Nicla
Furiani‡,§, Moira Monaco*,¶, Laura Ordeix**,††
and Fabia Scarampella§
*Centro Veterinario Prati, 1 ⁄ A, viale delle Milizie, 00192 Rome, Italy
†
Clinica Veterinaria Privata San Marco, 114 ⁄ C, via Sorio, 35141
Padova, Italy
‡
Clinica Veterinaria Pirani, 2 ⁄ L, via V. Majakowski, 42100 Reggio
Emilia, Italy
§
Studio Dermatologico Veterinario, 62, via Sismondi, 20100 Milan, Italy
¶
Ambulatorio Veterinario Associato, 73, via Castellammare, 00054
Fregene, Rome, Italy
**Hospital Ars Veterinaria, 3, carrer Cardedeu, 08023 Barcelona, Spain
††
Univet, Parc Cientific Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Edifici M,
08193 Bellaterra, Spain
Correspondence: Laura Ordeix, Univet, Parc Cientific Universitat
Autonòma de Barcelona, Edifici M, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.
E-mail: laura.ordeix@telefonica.net
Funding
Self-funded.
Conflict of Interest
None.
Abstract
Demodex canis is thought to be present in small
numbers in the skin of most healthy dogs; however,
available data on the prevalence of normal dogs
harbouring D. canis are scarce. The purpose of this
study was to investigate, using microscopic examina-
tion of plucked hairs, the prevalence of healthy dogs
harbouring D. canis. Seventy-eight clinically healthy
dogs with no history of dermatological problems and
clinically normal skin and hair coat were included in
the study. Five areas (perioral skin 2–3mm from both
labial commissures, periungual skin of the third digit
of both anterior paws and chin) were examined in
each dog. Fifty to sixty hairs were plucked from each
skin site and microscopically examined. No D. canis
mites were observed and only one adult form of
Demodex injai was found in the labial commissure of
one dog. Based on these results, the estimated preva-
lence of healthy dogs harbouring D. canis in clinically
normal skin should not exceed the threshold of
5.4%, with 95% confidence level. Considering our and
previous findings, we propose that, although small
numbers of D. canis might inhabit the skin of normal
dogs, the probability of finding these mites in
normal dogs is low. Consequently, in most cases, the
presence of a D. canis mite in the skin should not be
considered as indicative of normality.
Accepted 3 March 2009
146 ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151.
Introduction
In veterinary dermatology textbooks and journals, Demo-
dex canis is reported as a common resident of canine hair
follicles and is thought to be present in small numbers in
the skin of most normal dogs.1–4 However, available data
on the prevalence of healthy dogs harbouring D. canis are
scarce.
In a histological study,5 the prevalence of Demodex
spp. carriage was evaluated in 89 dogs with normal skin.
Eleven serial sections from 11 skin biopsy samples rang-
ing in size from 0.6 to 1 cm in diameter were examined
for mites. Intrafollicular Demodex spp. mites were clearly
observed in a skin sample from one dog euthanized
because of heart failure. In addition, structures suspected
of being mites were visualized in a single specimen from
two other dogs, both euthanized for health issues unre-
lated to the skin. As suggested in humans, skin biopsies
are unlikely to represent the most appropriate technique
for studying mite prevalence in the skin of healthy sub-
jects, as only a small sample of Demodex spp biotope is
analysed.6 In addition, in histological preparations, mites
tend to shrink, making detection difficult.7
In another prevalence study,8 skin specimens 0.5 cm in
diameter were taken from the upper eyelid and temporal
regions in 93 necropsied dogs with no visible cutaneous
lesions. After digestion of samples with potassium
hydroxide and centrifugation, microscopic examination of
sediment revealed Demodex mites in only five cases.
Unfortunately, neither the general health status of the
dogs nor the number of retrieved mites was reported. In
another study,9 106 stray dogs were necropsied and
1 cm3 skin samples from selected areas, including peri-
ocular, perioral and forelegs skin, were digested, centri-
fuged and microscopically examined. Demodex canis
mites were observed in samples from periocular and ⁄ or
perioral skin of 13 of 106 dogs. In six dogs, one to four
adult mites were recovered from the skin specimens and
6–97 mites were found in the remaining seven dogs.
Despite the lack of reported data on mite density in
normal canine skin, the authors suspected that at least
7 of 106 dogs may have had demodicosis. The method
used in these two studies has been reported as being
optimal for evaluating the prevalence of D. canis carrier
dogs.10 It allows for the complete examination of the bio-
tope of the mite from selected sites.
It is commonly reported that finding an adult D. canis
mite in canine skin is ‘normal’ and not indicative of demodi-
cosis.1,4 However, the prevalence of D. canis in healthy
dogs using skin scraping and hair plucking, has not been
clearly defined. This baseline information is important to
know when trying to determine whether a positive skin
scraping is within expected normal limits or is abnormal.

Demodex canis mites were observed in skin scrapings
from 5 of 103 and 46 of 200 stray dogs in two epidemio-
logical studies recently conducted in Korea11 and
Mexico.12 In both studies, examinations were performed
from different cutaneous areas, including the head and
extremities. However, in the study from Korea,11 the
number of retrieved mites was not specified and no infor-
mation was given regarding the general and cutaneous
health of the study dogs. In the study from Mexico,12
mites were observed in scrapings from 3 of 101 dogs
with no visible dermatological problems. Nevertheless,
no information was provided regarding either the number
of recovered mites or the general health of the Demodex-
positive dogs.
Information on the prevalence of Demodex mites in
healthy dogs using microscopic examination of plucked
hairs is lacking. This diagnostic technique is commonly
used in clinical practice, especially in dogs that are difficult
to restrain and ⁄ or for examination of sensitive areas, such
as periocular, perioral and pedal skin, which represent
the most commonly affected body regions in dogs with
demodicosis.4 Hair plucking is considered less sensitive
than skin scraping for diagnosing canine demodicosis
when the number of mites is low (70% relative sensitiv-
ity).13 However, based on the fact that no significant differ-
ence between skin scraping and hair plucking has been
observed in the proportion of Demodex-positive samples
taken from 161 dogs suffering either from localized or
generalized demodicosis, hair plucking has recently been
recommended as a reliable diagnostic technique.14
The purpose of this study was to investigate the preva-
lence of clinically healthy dogs harbouring D. canis using
microscopic examination of plucked hairs.
Materials and methods
This prevalence study was conducted by three investigators
(M.D.L., N.F. and M.M.), experienced in dermatology, in three Ital-
ian private practices respectively located in Padova, Reggio Emilia
and Fregene (Rome). In order to be eligible for being included in the
study, dogs had to meet the following criteria: (i) no history of der-
matological problems; (ii) good health status on routine physical
examination; and (iii) clinically normal skin and hair at the time of
dermatological examination. A signed informed consent was
obtained from all owners before each dog was entered into the
study. For each dog, the following data were recorded: owners
information, breed, sex, age, weight and source [adopted (public
kennel ⁄ stray), purchased from a private person or from a breeder],
reason for consultation and treatments for ectoparasites (product
and date of the last administration before entering the study). Five
areas were examined on each dog: periungual skin of the third digit
of both anterior paws, perioral skin 2–3 mm from the right and left
labial commissures, and chin (mid-rostral). Fifty to sixty hairs were
plucked from each skin site using curved mosquito haemostat
forceps with mild traction in the direction of hair growth. The skin
was not squeezed prior to hair plucking because squeezing, which
is commonly recommended prior to scraping,1,13 leads to partial
extrusion of follicular keratin from the hair follicles. In trichoscopic
examination, follicular keratin, in which mites are entrapped, needs
to remain adhered to extracted hairs. Each group of hairs was
placed on a glass slide, admixed with mineral oil, covered with a
22 · 22 mm glass cover slip and examined microscopically at
·10 magnification immediately after collection. Demodex mites
were counted and recorded during microscopic examination. The
presence of one mite, in any developmental stage, was deemed as
ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151.
Demodex canis prevalence in healthy dogs
a positive result. Identification of mites species was made accord-
ing to the figures published in veterinary textbooks1 and jour-
nals.15,16
Statistical methods
The criteria to determine the sample size were those used to detect
diseases in populations in which it can only be stated whether the
prevalence of a given condition is equal or above a certain chosen
threshold. The probability of observing x test positive cases when
testing n animals from an infinite population, with a test assumed to
have intrinsic limits of sensitivity and specificity, is given by the bino-
mial distribution:17
 
n
P ðT þ ¼ xÞ ¼ ½pSe þ ð1  p Þð1  SpÞx ½p ð1  SeÞ þ ð1  p ÞSpnx
x
in which P(T+) is the probability of x test positives, Se and Sp, respec-
tively, the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test and p the
assumed threshold prevalence. Prevalence thresholds were selected
based on previously reported data on Demodex-positive healthy
dogs.5,8,9,11,12 It was assumed that hair-plucking had an overall sensi-
tivity of 70%13 and, being the test based on direct microscopic exami-
nation, the specificity was assumed to be 100%. The above
parameters entered into FreeCalc18 yielded a minimum number of
individuals to be tested ranging between 85 (for prevalence ‡5%) and
70 (for prevalence ‡6%), at a confidence level of 95%. No formal ran-
domization process was used to select dogs for being included in the
study. Whenever the investigators were on duty, each dog brought
into the clinic was examined to verify whether the criteria of eligibility
were met. It was assumed that the true (unknown) prevalence of
Demodex-positive healthy dogs was stable along the study period. It
was also evaluated how different levels of test sensitivity would have
affected the threshold prevalence.
In order to estimate the probability for a test-negative dog of being
truly negative, the negative predictive value (NPV) of the test was cal-
culated:
P ðD  ÞSp
NPV ¼ P ðD  jT  Þ ¼
P ðD  ÞSp þ P ðD þ Þð1  SeÞ
NPV and the quantity 100%-NPV were plotted against the estimated
range of prevalence in order to evaluate how the probability for a test
negative of being falsely negative would have been accordingly
affected.
Results
From February to August 2008, 78 privately owned
healthy dogs, with clinically normal skin and hair, were
entered into the study. Twenty-one dogs were recruited
by M.D.L., 22 by N.F. and the remaining 35 dogs by M.M.
Of the 78 studied dogs, 47 were pure-bred and 31 mon-
grels. Forty-two dogs were intact males and 36 females,
12 of which were spayed. The age of the dogs ranged
between 2 and 126 months (mean 45.64 months; med-
ian 40.5 months). Forty-six dogs were purchased from a
private person, 19 from breeders and 13 were adopted
(eight were originally stray dogs and five came from pub-
lic kennels). Forty-one dogs were presented for routine
vaccinations, 25 for a periodic recheck of a nondermato-
logical problem, seven for consultations (two for ortho-
paedic problems, and one each for the other following
reasons: a nasal foreign body, lameness, vomiting, bone
eating and intervertebral disk extrusion) and five for surgi-
cal procedures (two for castration, one for spaying and
one for entropion). Fifty-seven of seventy-eight dogs had
147
Fondati et al.

received treatments for ectoparasites: 23 fipronil spot on 8.0%

(Frontline; Merial, Milan, Italy), 15 imidacloprid and per- 7.0%

Maximum threshold
methrin spot on (Advantix; Bayer, Milan, Italy), six pyri- 6.0%

prole spot on (Prac tic; Novartis, Varese, Italy), three
fipronil spot on (Frontline; Merial) and deltamethrin collar
(Scalibor; Intervet, Milan, Italy), two selamectin spot on
(Stronghold; Pfizer, Rome, Italy), two selamectin spot
on (Stronghold; Pfizer) and deltamethrin collar (Scali-
bor; Intervet), two deltamethrin collar (Scalibor; Inter-
vet), two permethrin spot on (Exspot; Schering-Plough,
Milan, Italy), one permethrin and pyriproxyfen solution
(Duowin; Virbac, Milan, Italy) and one imidacloprid and
moxidectin spot on (Advocate; Bayer). In 40 of 57 dogs
the date of the last treatment for ectoparasites before
entering the study was known and ranged between
4 days and 7 months, whereas, in the remaining 17 dogs
it was unknown. Twenty dogs had not been treated for
ectoparasites and in one dog it was unknown. In all 78
dogs, no D. canis mites were found on microscopic
examination of plucked hairs. In one flat coated retriever
mixed breed dog, an adult form of D. injai was identified
on the right labial commissure. As no test-positive dogs
were found in this study, the apparent prevalence of
healthy dogs harbouring D. canis in clinically normal skin
was 0%. Using trichoscopic examination, the unknown
true prevalence of D. canis-positive healthy dogs was
estimated not to exceed the threshold of 5.4%, at a confi-
dence level of 95%.
When plotting different levels of test sensitivity
against the corresponding prevalence, the maximum
threshold, with a test sensitivity of 50%, would have
been 7.6% (Figure 1). In addition, when plotting different
levels of estimated prevalence against the correspond-
ing values of 100%-NPV, given an expected prevalence
threshold of 5.4%, the probability for a test-negative dog
of not being truly negative (100%-NPV) was 1.68%
(Figure 2). Consequently, the NPV of the used test was
98.32% (Figure 2).
prevalence
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%
Sensitivity
Figure 1. Relationship between different levels of test sensitivity
and thresholds prevalence for a sample of 78 individuals with zero
test-positives detected.
Discussion
Our results suggest that, via trichoscopic examination,
the estimated prevalence, in this study, of healthy dogs
harbouring D. canis in clinically normally skin should not
exceed the threshold of 5.4%, with 95% confidence
level. Our findings are similar to those previously
reported; nevertheless, differences both in the study
populations and in the used techniques make
comparisons difficult. In a histological study,5 with one to
three positive dogs out of 89 studied, the prevalence of
Demodex-positive normal skin samples ranged from
1.12% to 3.37%. Regarding the two studies using skin
digestion, the prevalence of Demodex-positive dogs in
the American investigation8 was 5.4% whereas in the
Japanese study,9 if only dogs with low number of mites
were considered, the prevalence of D. canis carrier dogs
would be 5.66%. In the Korean study, using skin scrap-
ings,11 the prevalence of D. canis-positive dogs, possibly
including some dogs with skin lesions, was 4.85% and in
the Mexican study,12 the prevalence of D. canis-positive
skin scrapings in dogs with no visible skin lesions was
2.97%.
The low prevalence of D. canis-positive healthy dogs
found in our study might be attributed to different rea-

100.00% 2.60%

2.40%
98.00%
2.20%
96.00%
2.00%
Estimated values of 100%-NPV
Estimated values of NPV

94.00% 1.80%

1.60%
92.00%
1.40%
90.00%
1.20%
88.00% 1.00%

86.00% 0.80%

0.60%
84.00%
0.40%
82.00%
0.20%

80.00% 0.00%
1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

7.6%

Prevalence between 0 and 7.6%

Figure 2. Relationship between different levels of estimated prevalence and corresponding values of negative predictive value (NPV). (- - -) and
100%-NPV (...).

148 ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151.

sons. It could be argued that trichoscopic examination
was not sensitive enough to find mites inhabiting the skin
of normal dogs in very low numbers. However, as shown
in Figure 1, even with an assumed test sensitivity of
50%, the maximum estimated prevalence of D. canis-
positive normal dogs would not exceed 7.6%. This
means that, even if hair plucking was able to identify only
half of D. canis-positive healthy dogs, the prevalence of
dogs harbouring mites in clinically normal skin would be
estimated to be low, i.e. £7.6%. The NPV of microscopic
examination of plucked hairs appeared to be as high as
98.32%, and, even with a prevalence of 7.6%, the NPV
would have been 97.59% (Figure 2). This indicates that,
with the assumed hair plucking sensitivity (70%), the
probability in our study of a test-negative dog harbouring
mites in clinically normal skin (100%-NPV) would be as
low as 1.68%, as shown in Figure 2. In addition, even
assuming that trichoscopic examination had a lower sen-
sitivity (50%), the probability for a test-negative dog of
being falsely negative would have been low (2.41%), as
shown in Figure 2. These overall data make it unlikely that
the D. canis-carrier healthy dogs were overlooked due to
sensitivity limits of hair plucking.
It also seems unlikely that the low prevalence might be
attributed to the reduced number of samples examined.
In our study, 250–300 hair follicles per dog were micro-
scopically examined whereas in the study of Saridomich-
elakis et al.,13 100 hairs per dog were sampled. In
addition, in our study, hairs were plucked from areas
where Demodex mites are commonly found in dogs with
demodicosis (i.e. face and front feet), increasing the
chance that mites would be found. It is not likely that the
low prevalence of D. canis-positive trichoscopic examina-
tions was due to treatments for ectoparasites, in fact,
only one dog had been treated with a product [imidaclo-
prid and moxidectin spot on (Advocate; Bayer)] reported
to be effective against Demodex mites.19
Regarding the assumption that small numbers of
D. canis are present in most (i.e. >50%) healthy dogs,1–4
our results do not allow us to either confirm or to deny
this statement. In order to most accurately determine the
prevalence of normal dogs harbouring D. canis mites, the
entire skin of a significant number of healthy necropsied
dogs would need to be removed, macerated, centrifuged
and microscopically examined. This is the only technique
that would allow the complete examination of the
mite biotope. Dermatopathological examination of skin
samples, digestion of skin portions, skin scraping and hair
plucking only allow for partial examination of the biotope
of D. canis mites because of the small area of skin sam-
pled.
It might be hypothesized that more than 50%, or possi-
bly 100%, of normal dogs harbour D. canis mites in the
skin, but in numbers so low that they are not easily found
using the above-mentioned procedures. As previously
explained, it must be assumed that all these methods
have variable limits of sensitivity, mainly related to the
incomplete examination of Demodex biotope. As previ-
ously suggested,5 it might be that the prevalence of
D. canis-positive healthy dogs is low and most normal
dogs do not harbour the mite in the skin. Demodex canis
mites might inhabit the skin of only a selected population
ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151.
Demodex canis prevalence in healthy dogs
of dogs. Speculatively, only certain dogs, with cutaneous
and ⁄ or systemic Demodex-specific favourable conditions,
might carry the mites and be at risk of developing demodi-
cosis. Interestingly, in a population of 50 987 dogs pre-
sented to veterinary clinics, the prevalence of canine
demodicosis (3%) was similar to that reported for
D. canis carrier dogs.20
High prevalence (58%) of D. canis-positive healthy sub-
jects was observed in a study conducted on 45 suckling
puppies, up to 6 weeks old, born to bitches that were
either normal or affected by demodicosis.21 Comparison
with other data is difficult, mostly because adult dogs
have been included in prevalence studies, including ours.
However, it might be speculated that the prevalence of
D. canis-positive puppies is higher than that reported in
adults due to the incomplete function of the immune sys-
tem at a very young age, allowing proliferation of mites.
In adults, with adequate immune system function, control
mechanisms might limit the population of mites, as
hypothesized in humans.22
From a clinical point of view, concerning the assump-
tion that the demonstration of an adult D. canis mite in
canine skin is indicative of normality,1,4 our results do not
support this statement. Finding a D. canis mite in the skin
of normal dogs appears to be uncommon, as previously
suggested.1,4 Based on the low probability of finding
D. canis mites in normal dogs, if a D. canis is found, it is
strongly recommended to perform additional examina-
tions before ruling out the diagnosis of demodicosis, as
suggested also in humans.23
Regarding the adult form of D. injai found in a sample
from the right labial commissure of one dog, identification
was made based on the long-bodied shape, as it appears
in published figures.15,16 The dog was rechecked by the
same investigator (M.M.) 6 months after the first exami-
nation and both general and dermatological examinations
were normal. At this time the dog had been treated only
with fipronil spot on, applied 2 months before re-examina-
tion. Trichoscopic examinations were repeated and 50–60
hairs were plucked from seven sites, 10 cm apart, on the
dorsal midline, from two different sites 2–3 mm from
each labial commissure, and from one site on the chin
(mid-rostral), both periocular regions and periungual skin
of the third digit of the four paws. As previously
explained, skin was not squeezed prior to hair plucking in
order to extract follicular keratin, in which mites remain
entrapped, together with hairs. An adult form of D. injai
was observed at trichoscopic examination on the left
labial commissure at the recheck. Skin scrapings were
also performed at the recheck, close to both labial com-
missures, and no mites were observed. Unfortunately,
squeezing prior to scraping was not performed due to the
difficulty in restraining the dog. Negative results of scrap-
ings might be partly attributed to the fact that the skin
was not squeezed; in fact it has been recently reported
that squeezing increases the number of Demodex-
positive samples in dogs with demodicosis.14 To the
authors’ knowledge, the presence of D. injai has not been
reported in clinically normal skin of healthy dogs. Interest-
ingly, sebaceous gland hyperplasia has been commonly
reported as a histological finding from skin sections from
dogs suffering from demodicosis due to D. injai, which
149
Fondati et al.

inhabits hair follicles and sebaceous glands.15,16 It might
be speculated that the numerous sebaceous glands,
physiologically present near mucocutaneous junctions,24
might represent a favourable habitat for this Demodex
species. However, no conclusions can be drawn, due to
the current lack of knowledge on the biology of D. injai.
In summary, our study shows that, using microscopic
examination of plucked hairs, the estimated prevalence
of healthy dogs harbouring D. canis in clinically normal
skin does not exceed 5.4%, with 95% confidence level.
Based on these findings and on those previously
reported, the authors propose that, although small num-
bers of D. canis might inhabit the skin of normal dogs,
the probability of finding these mites in normal dogs is
low. Consequently, in most cases, the presence of a
D. canis in the skin should not be considered as indicative
of normality.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Giancarlo Ferrari for his help with the
statistics.
References
1. Scott DW, Miller WM, Griffin CE. Parasitic skin diseases. In:
Muller and Kirk’s Small Animal Dermatology, 6th edn. Philadel-
phia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 2001: 423–516.
2. Mason IS, Mason KV, Lloyd DH. A review of the biology of
canine skin with respect to the commensals Staphylococcus in-
termedius, Demodex canis and Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet-
erinary Dermatology 1996; 7: 119–32.
3. Mueller RS. Treatment protocols for demodicosis: an evidence-
based review. Veterinary Dermatology 2004; 15: 75–89.
4. Gortel K. Update on canine demodicosis. Veterinary Clinics Small
Animal Practice 2006; 36: 229–41.
5. Henpf Olschewski C, Olschewski CH. Hat jeder hautgesunde
Hund Demodexmilben? Histologische Untersuchung von Haut-
proben. Tiermedizinische Fakultät. Berlin: Freie Universität Ber-
lin, 1998. p. 3–141.
6. Forton F. Standardized skin surface biopsy: method to estimate
the Demodex folliculorum density, not to study the Demodex fol-
liculorum prevalence. Journal of the European Academy of Der-
matology and Venereology 2007; 21: 1301–2.
7. Moravvej H, Dehghan-Mangabadi M, Abbasian M-R et al. Asso-
ciation of rosacea with demodicosis. Archives of Iranian Medi-
cine 2007; 10: 199–203.
8. Gaafar SM, Smalley HE, Turk RD. The incidence of Demodex
species on skins of apparently normal dogs. Journal of the Amer-
ican Veterinary Medical Association 1958; 133: 122–3.
9. Yamane O, Sako S. Studies on canine demodicosis. Test results
with demodectic mite population. Journal of the Japan Veterinary
Medical Association 1957; 10: 362–35. (article in Japanese)
10. Nutting WB. Hair follicle mites (Demodex spp.) of medical and
veterinary concern. The Cornell Veterinarian 1976; 66: 214–31.
11. Chee J-H, Kwon J-K, Cho H-S et al. A survey of ectoparasite
infestation in stray dogs of Gwang-ju City, Republic of Korea.
Korean Journal of Parasitology 2008; 46: 23–7.
12. Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Ortega-Pacheco A, Rosado-Aguilar JA et al.
Factors affecting the prevalence of mange-mite infestations in
stray dogs of Yucatán, Mexico. Veterinary Parasitology 2003;
115: 61–5.
13. Saridomichelakis MN, Koutinas AF, Farmaki R et al. Relative
sensitivity of hair pluckings and exudate microscopy for the diag-
nosis of canine demodicosis. Veterinary Dermatology 2007; 18:
138–41.
14. Beco L, Fontaine J, Bergvall K et al. Comparison of skin scrapes
and hair plucks for detecting Demodex mites in canine demodi-
cosis, a multicentre, prospective study. Veterinary Dermatology
2007; 18: 281 (Abstract).
15. Hillier A, Desch CE. Large-bodied Demodex mite infestation in 4
dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
2002; 220: 623–7.
16. Desch CE, Hillier A. Demodex injai: a new species of hair follicle
mite (Acari: Demodecidae) from the domestic dog (Canidae).
Journal of Medical Entomology 2003; 40: 146–9.
17. Cameron AR, Baldock FC. A new probability formula for surveys
to substantiate freedom from disease. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 1998; 34: 1–17.
18. FreeCalc Web site. http://www.ausvet.com.au/content.php?
page=res_software#freecalc [accessed on 21 January 2008].
19. Heine J, Krieger K, Dumont P et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and
safety of imidacloprid 10% plus moxidectin 2.5% spot-on in
the treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs: results of a
European field study. Parasitology Research 2005; 97: S89–96.
20. Nayak DC, Tripathy SB, Dey PC et al. Prevalence of canine
demodicosis in Orissa (India). Veterinary Parasitology 1997; 73:
347–52.
21. Greve JH, Gaafar SM. Natural transmission of Demodex canis in
dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
1966; 148: 1043–5.
22. Yagdiran Düzgün O, Aytekin S. Comparison of Demodex follicu-
lorum density in haemodialysis patients with a control group.
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereol-
ogy 2007; 21: 480–3.
23. Forton F, Song M. Limitations of standardized skin surface
biopsy in measurement of the density of Demodex folliculorum.
A case report. British Journal of Dermatology 1998; 139:
697–700.
24. Scott DW, Miller WM, Griffin CE. Structure and function of the
skin. In: Muller and Kirk’s Small Animal Dermatology, 6th edn.
Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 2001: 48–51.

Résumé Demodex canis (D. canis) est supposé etre présent en faible nombre dans la peau de la plupart
des chiens sains, cependant peu de données sont disponibles sur cette prévalence. L’objet de cette étude
était de déterminer par l’examen microscopique de poils épilés, la prévalence de D.canis chez le chien sain.
Soixante dix huit chiens cliniquement sains sans atteinte dermatologique rapportée et avec une peau et un
pelage alésionnels, ont été inclus dans l’étude. Cinq zones (peau de la commissure des lèvres, peau
périunguéale du doigt III des deux membres antérieurs et le menton) ont été éxaminés chez chaque chien.
Cinquante à soixante poils ont été prélevés sur chaque zone et examinés au microscope. Aucun D.canis n’
a été observé et seulement un Demodex injai adulte a été trouvé au niveau de la commissure des lèvres
d’un chien. A partir de ces résultats, la prévalence estimée du portage de D.canis chez le chien sain ne
devrait pas dépasser 5,4%, avec 95% d’indice de confiance. A partir de ces résultats et des données de la
littérature, les auteurs proposent que, bien qu’un faible nombre de D. canis puisse résider dans la peau de
chiens sains, la probabilité de les trouver est faible. Ainsi, das la plupart des cas, la présence de D.canis
dans la peau ne devrait pas etre considéré comme normal.

150 ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151.
 Demodex canis prevalence in healthy dogs

Resumen Se piensa que el ácaro Demodex canis está presente en pequeños números en la piel de la may-
orı́a de los perros sanos, sin embargo no existen muchos datos acerca de la prevalencia de perros sanos
portadores de D. canis. El propósito de este estudio fue investigar mediante el examen microscópico de
pelos arrancados, la prevalencia de D. canis en perros sanos. Setenta y ocho perros sanos sin historia de
problemas dermatológicos y con piel y pelo clı́nicamente normales se incluyeron en este estudio. Se exam-
inaron cinco areas en cada perro (piel perioral a ambos lados de las comisuras labiales, piel periungual del
dedo tercero de las patas anteriores y la barbilla). Se arrancaron de cincuenta a sesenta pelos de cada lugar
y se examinaron al microscopio. No se observaron ácaros D. canis y sólamente un adulto de Demodex injai
se encontró en la comisura labial de un perro. Basados en estos resultados, la prevalencia estimada de per-
ros sanos portadores de D. canis en piel clı́nicamente normal no deberı́a exceder el nivel del 5.4% con un
95% de confianza. Considerando éstos y hallazgos previos, proponemos que, aunque pequeños números
de D. canis podrı́an habitar la piel de algunos perros normales, la probabilidad de encontrar esos ácaros en
perros normales es baja. Por lo tanto, en la mayorı́a de los casos, la presencia de D. canis en la piel no debe
considerarse como normal.

Zusammenfassung Es wird angenommen, das Demodex canis (D. canis) in geringer Anzahl in der Haut
von fast allen gesunden Hunden vorkommt, trotzdem gibt es wenig Literatur mit Angaben über die Präval-
enz von D. canis bei normalen Hunden. Das Ziel dieser Studie war es mittels mikroskopischer Unter-
suchung von ausgezupften Haaren die Prävalenz von D. canis bei gesunden Hunden zu untersuchen.
Achtundsiebzig klinisch gesunde Hunde ohne einem Vorbericht von Hautproblemen, mit klinisch normaler
Haut und normalem Haarkleid wurden in die Studie aufgenommen. Bei jedem Hund wurden fünf Stellen
(periorale Haut beidseits neben den Lippenkommissuren, periunguale Haut der dritten Zehe beider
Vorderfüsse und Kinn) untersucht. Fünfzig bis 60 Haare wurden von jeder Hautstelle ausgezupft und
mikroskopisch untersucht. Es wurden keine D. canis Milben gefunden und nur eine adulte Form von
Demodex injai wurde an der Lippenkommissur eines Hundes gefunden. Basierend auf diesen Ergebnissen
kann man sagen, dass die geschätzte Prävalenz von gesunden Hunden, die D. canis in klinisch normaler
Haut beherbergen, den Schwellenwert von 5,4% bei einem Konfidenzintervall von 95% nicht überschrei-
ten sollte. Unter Bedachtnahme auf unsere und frühere Ergebnisse, schlagen wir vor, dass die
Wahrscheinlichkeit derartige Milben in der Haut normaler Hunde zu finden, niedrig ist, obwohl eine kleine
Anzahl von D. canis die Haut bei manchen normalen Hunden bewohnen kann. Folglich sollte das
Vorkommen einer D. canis Milbe in der Haut der meisten Fälle nicht als ein Hinweis für Normalität gesehen
werden.

ª 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2009 ESVD and ACVD, Veterinary Dermatology, 21, 146–151. 151