Talk:Tooth decay

Other Main Factors

It seems to me that there should be a source and quote for users of medical cannabis that also develop dry mouth and decreased saliva production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftdrummer (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Main image

The first image, while quite good, seems a bit too graphic. I'd propose that it be changed to something easier for squeamish people (like me)--maybe an illustration rather than a photograph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pink jester (talk • contribs) 23:02, 10 April 2007.

I believe that is one of the best pictures that we have. I do not think there is an illustration that would do the topic justice, and I am sure the general public can handle it. - Dozenist talk 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This was asked on the Extraction (Dental page, which is a much more graphic photo, and consensus was that it should stay, for educational purposes. This is fairly tame and should stay, as an illustration won't do as much justice. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main image is way gross!! I almost threw up!!````mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary divalerio (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the main image should definetly be removed!!!!--Gigilili 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about history of tooth decay

Just interested to know how humanity has coped with tooth decay through out the ages, that'd be a good addition. Cheers --134.225.163.117 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I think the main imagage should be less graphic! It just seems too distgusting. An illastaration would be more appealing to my stoumach!!!```` mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary divalerio (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

I wonder if the NIH source [1] from which this article was largely derived is in fact public domain. See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/faq/copyrightfaq.html. Since the source article was part of the encylopedia, it may have reserved rights. What do you think? A-giau 20:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. There is a copyright notice at the end of http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001055.htm -Unknown

I agree...and there doesnt seem to be a reference to that site either?

Images

Are there no picturs that would be good for this article? maybe someone can make a diagram of cavities. 199 22:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For an illustration of dental caries, I suggest you make a link to:

http://www.db.od.mah.se/car/data/cariesser.html -Unknown

Proposed move to dental caries

I suggest moving most of the content of this article to dental caries as that is the correct technical term. This article can remain to summarize dental caries and also expand on the non-caries causes of dental cavities (which are less important, caries accounting for most cavities). Comments? Alex.tan 04:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Move it. Dental caries is the disease, while cavities are just some signs of the disease. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 05:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will ask an administrator to move the page in a week's time (say on August 17th, 2005). The dental caries page needs to be deleted so that this page can be moved with its edit history intact. Alex.tan 17:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

the redirect has no edit history so there is no need for it to be deleted before the move. Plugwash 03:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for pointing that out. Alex.tan 14:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Whys of oral hygiene, origin of recommendations (e.g. NIH or ADA)

There is a paragraph in the text that goes like this:

Oral hygiene is the primary prevention against dental caries. This consists of personal care (proper brushing at least twice a day and flossing at least daily) and professional care (regular dental examination and cleaning, every 6 months). Select X-rays may be taken yearly to detect possible cavity development in high risk areas of the mouth.

What I don't like about the paragraph is that it just gives indications, but it doesn't tell which dentists or organizations recommend those indications, i.e. where those recommendations come from, or what the source of those recommendations is. For example, do those recommendations come from one of the National Institutes of Health or from the American Dental Association or from somewhere else, e.g. a United Nations agency? If those recommendations come from the NIH or the ADA, then why do we have recommendations on this article that come from U.S. organizations and not frpm organizations somewhere else? The article should at least explain why those recommendations are widespread (if they are) and since when they are used.

The article should also explain which tests, experiments or studies or research or whatever support those claims. For example, why do the indications say that one should brush teeth twice a day and not three times or just one? Which study supports this? Where was the study done? Who made the study? Why did they come to that conclusion?

The same goes for other indications:

1. Why floss once a day and not three times or two?
2. Why have a dental examination twice a year and not four times or just one?
3. Why have teeth professionally cleaned twice a year and not, say, six times a year?
4. Why take X rays every year and not every six months or every two years?

2004-12-29T22:45Z 14:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

There are several points here, all valid.

Whilst good oral hygiene is a necessary component of prevention, low frequency of sugar intake is also necessary as a primary goal when treating a patient with caries. This is because the acidogenic theory of caries causation depends on bacteria consuming refined carboydrates and producing lactic acid. If you have lots of sugar coming into the mouth caries would still be likely to occur, despite meticulously kept teeth since total elimination of bacteria from the oral cavity is impossible (at least, if the patient is to live...). There are studies that look at both these issues that one of us should be able to find.

Also, the 6 month recall issue is fortunately being pushed aside by the more progressively-minded dentists. If you read the ammended article on the causes of caries it will be clear that different people will have different rates of dental caries depending on various factors. Thus to argue that all should attend on a six-monthly basis is totally unscientific and does not take into account the history of caries in the individual, nor the likely rate of development of caries based on their current oral hygiene regimen and sugar intake. In some cases a patient may need to be seen every three months. Another may not need to be seen for a couple of years. There are new guidelines in the UK on this. I will try to get a reference.

The advice to floss daily is based on the rate at which bacteria in the mouth tend to replicate and become established. It takes 24 hours for them to become sufficiently established to potentially cause problems to the gums. But to be honest, if there is enough sugar around, they will begin causing problems to the teeth within seconds or minutes of the floss leaving the tooth surface. Hence the advice above on sugar intake.

Cleaning is not required routinely unless there are specific indications and these usually relate to gum disease rather than caries. So to put regular cleaning in an article about caries seems a little spurious to me.

Finally, the part about taking x-rays yearly is also spurious following the same lines as above. Again, the frequency of x-rays needs to be based on the caries-risk of the patient. In some patients with a very high sugar intake and signs of caries on an x-ray today, re-x-raying in 3-6 months might be sensible. For another patient who has an untouched dentition, good oral hygiene and low sugar intake, x-rays spaced at 3 years would not be unreasonable. There are guidelines for this too. I'll try and lay my hands on them.--Richdom 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence of dental caries in different countries and periods of time

The second thing that bugs me about this article is that it doesn't give more statistics. For example, does the prevalence ("frequency") of dental caries in a population depend on the consumption of processed food instead of whole foods or fibrous foods? If so, did the prevalence of caries increase throughout history because of the production of processed food? Is there any evidence?

Also, the article should talk more about dental caries and its prevalence in animals, because humans are not the only organisms that have dental caries. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 14:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article

The article has to be improved in many ways. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 14:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

What the article says		What it should say
Dental caries, also known colloquially as tooth decay is a disease of the teeth resulting in damage to tooth structure.	14:11, August 19, 2005	It is a disease in which species of organisms other than humans? Which organisms have teeth, and since when in the history of evolution (e.g. a certain geological eon/era/epoch)?
Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the most common of all disorders, second only to the common cold.	14:11, August 19, 2005	Which statistics support this claim that dental caries is second to the common cold? What are the numbers? Did this fact change throughout history? If so, since when is dental caries the second most common disorder? Which dentists or organizations made or make those statistical studies, where, when, how?
It usually occurs in children and young adults, but can affect any person. It is the most important cause of tooth loss in younger people.	14:11, August 19, 2005	Again, there should be numbers for this. For example, how many people have dental caries in a given population at a given time?
The bacteria convert foods—especially sugar and starch—into acids.	14:11, August 19, 2005	Which acids? Give some names and link them to other Wikipedia articles that give details about the acids. How do bacteria convert those mentioned foods into acids inside their cells? Which processes do those foods undergo inside the bacterial cells?
Plaque and bacteria begin to accumulate within 20 minutes after eating, the time when most bacterial activity occurs.	14:11, August 19, 2005	Where does the given time period ("20 minutes") come from? Different species of bacteria have different lengths of time for their reproductive cycles, so the article should be more specific.

For some reason people are ignoring this table. Someone put some good effort into it. The questions should be answered by someone. I, unfortunately, know nothing about it. There must be some dentists out there. Your contribution would be welcome. Twilight Realm 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll get some info for you. Some of this may be supplied by two other dental articles that have become featured: Tooth enamel and Tooth development. From what I remember off the top of my head, I think I wrote more about this topic in the tooth enamel article. - Dozenist talk 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right, this article does seem to be lacking. This is probably because it is based on another article which is directed toward the general public.

The final appoint above - about plaque beginning to accumulate within 20 minutes - is questionable. Bacteria start to colonise a freshly cleaned tooth surface within seconds regardless of the presence or otherwise of sucrose. I cut it in my radical cut. As noted in the comment below, I appologise if this has caused offence and would be happy if you wished to revert to the previous if you felt it better suited.--Richdom 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the 1998 Adult Dental Health Survey of the UK, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/AdltDentlHlth98_v3.pdf, 55% of dentate adults had caries when surveyed. And in the Child dental health survey of 2003, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/children/dentalhealth/downloads/cdh_dentinal_decay.pdf, 43% of 12 year olds had obvious dental caries. Might these be useful to include? And might they answer the point in the table above? --Richdom 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of caries occuring in other animals. I would think this is because they tend not to eat refined carbohydrates If they did they would probably get it. Perhaps a vet can tell us?--Richdom 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

About plaque forming in 20 minutes, I am assuming that that statement referred to things like material alba forming, etc. But the details should be checked. And animals can get perio, so I assume they could possibly get caries. I saw that dogs have saliva with higher pH, which helps them not develop caries. - Dozenist talk 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good link that covers this info request - it covers some caries in other animals, apes mostly. It also covers the historical increase in dental caries. I am struggling with how to include this information in the main article without plagiarising, but the info is so good (I learned stuff from it - you can never know everything about dental caries) it should be included. - http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/11_1Epidemiology.htm - Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Request information on ancient times

I'm wondering how people treated cavities and tooth problems in ancient times when they used things like traditional Chinese medicine and accupuncture? DyslexicEditor 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about age ties to cavities

The article claims "It usually occurs in children and young adults..." What is the medical reason behind dental caries being more likely to occur in these groups? I can understand the children part — maybe children are less responsible about brushing their teeth, or maybe children tend to consume more candy, or maybe children just have weaker teeth, and any one of these three causes could be contributing factors — but why young adults, who should already know to be responsible about brushing teeth, who do not consume more candy than older adults, and who are unlikely to have weaker teeth than older adults? —Lowellian (reply) 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dental enamel becomes more resistant to dental caries over time due to exposure to flouride. However the theorised reasons for increased caries rates in children is the lack of oral hygiene, lack of manual dexterity, inability to understand concept of oral hygiene, inability to apply those concepts, increased frequency of intake of carbohydrates, increased susceptibility of primary teeth to decay due to differing quality of enamel when compared with adult teeth and decreased thickness of enamel when compared with adult teeth (increases likelyhood of cavitation). In young adults, a lot of the same applies as well as during the ugly duckling (mixed dentition) phase when there is a mixture of primary and permanent teeth in the mouth it can be difficult to access all areas to keep them clean, it can be painful to brush or floss as the gingivae may become inflamed during exfoliation (loss) and eruption (emergence) and motivation goes down (teenagers can lack motivation in other areas I'm sure) to look after teeth because of their 'patient perceived' appearance. So in answer to your question, the reasons for this increase are included under the psychobiosocial concept of disease, that is psychology, biology and social context contribute to the progression of the disease. I have no reference for this and am too lazy to look, which is why it hasn't gone into the main article. Also, I think it goes beyond an encyclopaedic contribution. ;) Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Second most common?

Is there anything to back up the statement that "Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the most common of all disorders, second only to the common cold"? Please see the chart above. Twilight Realm 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• The statement appears to be inaccurate, or at least incomplete. I have changed the sentence to: "Dental caries is one of the most common disorders affecting humans [2] [3]." -AED 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was reading recently that someone presented a lecture at the IADR conference in Brisbane which was about caries still being the most prevalent human disease, but I can't find a reference anywhere, even on the WHO website. I always thought that caries was the MOST common human disease, followed by periodontal disease (gingivitis specifically). I will try to find a reference and update this section. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I'm not an expert on this, but isn't the standard Wikipedia policy to name articles for what they are most commonly known? For example, the article for bears isn't "Family Ursidae," and the article for Bill Clinton isn't "William Jefferson Clinton." Does that apply to this article? Should it be moved to "Tooth decay"? Twilight Realm 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Above is a section of discussion where the article was successfully moved from cavities to dental caries, its current location. I think the article should remain with this name for clarity. Sometimes, there is actual decay on a tooth as seen in this picture. Othertimes, there is no "decay" at all but a demineralization process has begun. In that case, the lesion would still be called dental caries. Though we are just talking about names of the same thing, I do not see any problem with keeping the proper name for this as long as a link or redirect takes a person searching for tooth decay to this article. - Dozenist talk 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the most common name in the lay public is usually used on Wikipedia, although there are several exceptions. Medical articles in general tend to be named using scientific names over lay terms, for a number of reasons. One is that people expect a certain formality and professionalism from an encyclopedia, and so proper terms should be used (for example, myocardial infarction instead of [[heart attack]]), with appropriate redirects and explanations in place. Another major reason is that as mentioned above, lay terms may be imprecise or refer to more than one entity. I would agree with keeping this at "Dental caries". — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the singular of Caries? is it Carie or Cariis?

AFAIK, caries is singular. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've just discovered that caries is both singular and plural. I suppose the context defines the correct grammar to use with caries. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

the article name needs to change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Gigilili 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Italic text''Italic textBold text''

Most significant cause of tooth loss in younger people?

I find this a bit questionable... is this discounting teeth that are wiggly and naturally fall out? I think it would have to... so it really does surpass stuff like teeth getting knocked out? Are these based on world stats, inclusive of nations with no dental care, or on first-world nations? If they differ I think it would be good to expand upon that. Tyciol 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by this is most significant pathological cause of tooth loss. Of course natural tooth exfoliation is a more common cause for loss of primary teeth, however what is implied here, and maybe it could be a bit clearer, is the loss of a tooth because of pathological reasons, not a natural physiological process. While this is clear to dentists and dental healthcare workers, it may not be to the general population. This may need a small rewrite.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Large alteration...

I have edited the first section - causes - severely as I found the current piece did not present the causes in a logical fashion and there were a number of major errors, such as tooth wear being a result of caries (it is a different process resulting from one of three effects: attrition, abrasion or erosion). I'm afraid that I had to make so many changes that it became impossible to do this within the framework of the original and so I ended up cutting large parts. I hope to find references other than the standard text books I referred to in writing this article. --Richdom 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have added 6 references to the above.--Richdom 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have also just read the notes on editing material and appologise to the original authors and editors for not consulting on the changes I made before making them.--Richdom 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Causes?

I wonder if instead of 'Causes' we might consider using either the professional term 'aetiology' (etiology I think in the US) or the lay term 'development' since the article addresses a process that involves more than just the causes (i.e. sugars and bacteria). Otherwise, perhaps the causes should be simply stated, and the development addressed in another section. --Richdom 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prevention

I think the 'prevention' part of the article needs a major cleanup. It seems to be more of an instructions format than an encyclopedia format.

Big work is needed there.---- Billyb 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is it in an instructional format, there are no citations for the information. I'm not a dentist, so I don't know the studies that have suggested these preventions, but I'm sure someone can add them. I'm adding some citation needed tags and flagging the Prevention section. Littleman TAMU 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dentistry article of the week

I am removing the tag at the top of the article saying there are not references in the Prevention section since our work on it recently has added some references. More references are still needed, but every section currently has some references. Anyone's thoughts? - Dozenist talk 02:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contrary, Dozenist, but I think that saying that oral hygiene is the main method for the prevention of dental caries may be construed as non NPOV. This is probably incredibly nitpicky and in terms of an encyclopaedia probably has no bearing, which is why I haven't already edited this section, but poor dietary habit is the main contributor to dental caries, not the lack of oral hygiene. Semantics, I know. This is something I will never forget, because a colleague of mine failed his final paedo/ortho exam based on his response to the question from an examiner "What is the first thing you should do after diagnosing high caries risk in an individual?" He said oral hygiene instruction, but according to the examiner the correct answer is diet analysis. Reduction in intake of non-milk extrinsic sugars is probably the best way to reduce the incidence of dental caries (the benefits of oral hygiene notwithstanding), because the means of producing acid is being removed. While acidogenic bacteria are another 'cause' of dental caries, currently available oral hygiene practices do not produce asepsis in the mouth, even momentarily, so these bacteria are impossible to remove permanently. I would agree that it is far easier to change someone's oral hygiene practices than their dietary habits and therefore good oral hygiene may be considered more successful in the prevention of caries. I think what I'm getting at is, with the eilimination of NME sugars from the diet (which is actually easier than total elimination of plaque), the Stephan Curve of pH is also eliminated. This is probably a philosophical more than a practical point. What do you think? Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are some good points, and let me express to you my immense gratitude for having your help on this article. Editing this stuff is so much easier when having someone else who knows about dentistry help out.

1) Concerning the main method for prevention of dental caries, perhaps it would be better to not say "main method" and just say something like "an important method"? Or, we could find a reliable source to quote what is the "main method for prevention"? That way, the article can back up the statement since I know there are many different philosophies and people like to emphasize different aspects of dentistry.

(2) I wanted to bring up something about one sentence which says: "Dental caries is usually discovered during routine checkups." I may be overly concerned about this, but I didn't know if the wording of the sentence implies something like "Most dental caries around the world are discovered in routine checkups" or "Dental caries is usually discovered in every routine chekcup." Since there are many people who do not go to the dentist and consequently have the caries go undiagnosed, and since some people do not have caries discovered during their checkup (by accident or because they do not have any caries at all), I thought perhaps something like "Dental caries can be discovered during routing checkups" would be better?

What are your thoughts on these two points? Also, I do not know if you have a digital camera, but if you do a picture of a periapical radiograph or bitewing showing an example of interproximal decay on teeth with no restorations would be useful. :-) I looked through some of my pictures last nite, but could not find any. The ones I found had huge amalgam restorations as well or what not, and that might get confusing to the untrained eye. I will look through the rest of my pictures tonite. - Dozenist talk 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Whichever you feel works, I will go along with because as I pointed out, oral hygiene is probably practically a more effective method of preventing caries whereas dietary analysis and advice produce a behavioural change that is difficult to achieve and only reduces caries risk. I think we may need to include some items about demin/remin and possibly Stefan's Curve in order to put caries aetiology into context, although that may be a bit detailed. Citation for this would be great - possibly in E. Kidd - Caries? I don't have a copy of her book but it is fairly comprehensive, but it may not be obtainable in which case a rewording is in order. In the end of the day the point is moot, which may be the problem.

2) Yes, this is a rewrite that I did that I am not entirely happy with, I must say. I think that sentence could be left out altogether, I just rewrote what was there slightly to prevent repetition later on in the paragraph. It does indeed imply that most dental caries are discovered! I didn't write this originally, just adjusted but what I think the intention of this was to say that more caries is discovered on routine examination than by a direct complaint from a patient. Therefore, the patient is unaware that they have a lesion or lesions. This should be removed for the purposes of disambiguation and because it is probably unverifiable in the literature. I wouldn't say any epidemiological survey has specifically set out to determine whether this is true or not, but it could be inferred from DMFT surveys based on the decayed portion of the survey vs. filled or missing combined. Which I really don't want to do and don't think it is entirely necessary for the purposes of the article. So this is out.

Not a problem on helping out. I'm a bit lazy when it comes to citing. I wish I was doing this last year when I was doing my finals - it would have helped me a lot. I was more on the game then with references and I had access to a lovely dental library. Oh well. I'll just have to make do with what I have at the moment. On the pictures front, I have a few clinical photographs but I don't have permission to use them in this manner. What I might do is take some photos of my friends fillings - they won't mind them being bandied about on the internet! I don't have a nice clinical camera with a macro lens, just a crappy little compact dig with digital macro. It'll have to do until next month when I get the nice cam! I'll get on it. Radiographs will be a bit more difficult, but I'll try also. Some bitewings and a p.a. maybe if I can. Hard enough to get a good example. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Well done on the photos and radiographs, Dozenist. I don't think you will get much better than that! Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! I was a little surprised to find a good picture. I cropped the bitewing to show it, but we'll see what else we can add. - Dozenist talk 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To a layman, this image of a before/after tooth extraction seems confusing. It's shows two rows of teeth next to each other (like a shark) and there's gutter or border between the panels, or caption below, e.g. "before" on the left, "after" on the right; instead two separate events are contained in a single image. 2nd test, I turned up the brightness on my monitor (I like it darker for text reading) and the black/pink border became clearer. A white gutter between the panels would still be helpful and would certainly do no harm. --AC 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article status?

You might want to nominate this article for "good article" status. I haven't examined it closely, but it seems like it will meet the criteria. It's got a ton of references, which is all too uncommon and as far as it can tell is well written and illustrated. ike9898 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaking

What is it called when the enamel of the tooth starts flaking off (when ridge develops on the surface of a tooth--the back of one of the front teeth in my case) and the teeth are transparent at the bottom? Are they related phenemenon? Brentt 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a picture of it? And can you describe it more? Is this all of sudden or born with it? Any other weird phenomenon? - Dozenist talk 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DEATH???

OK! How does tooth decay cause DEATH??? Obviously, you guys just enjoy exhaggerating the truth! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.191.64.130 (talk • contribs) .

Dental infections, when severe and left untreated, can cause life-threatening infections, such as Ludwig's angina. - Dozenist talk 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any info on how long it can take for someone to actually die from an abscessed tooth, or teeth? I just got finished reading an article (link provided below), and wondered how long it may have taken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116_pf.html

Lancet review

There is a review of dental caries in the lancet this week: Selwitz R, Ismail A, Pitts N (2007). "Dental caries". Lancet. 369 (9555): 51–9. PMID 17208642.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --WS 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I've promoted this article to Good Article status. It easily meets all requirements. Areas for improvement, in my view, include

• integrating or expanding the few one- or two-sentence paragraphs;
• a section on incidence (epidemiology); I realize this information is in the lead, but generally the lead summarizes the rest of the article, and I didn't see incidence information there.
• look for opportunities to reduce the repetition of the word "caries"; a previous edit of mine was to that effect.

User: deftdrummer Time: 0018 Hey, it is not a news story it is an encyclopedic article. The lead is really just a large paragraph summary. I do agree though that one and two sentence paragraphs should be integrated or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftdrummer (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Nice work! –Outriggr § 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Article rating

I have rated the article as having a top priority in dentistry for several reasons. The disease is widespread and common. Treatments for caries are commonplace and essential to understand by all dentists. There is a long history of the disease. Lastly, most people, even non-dentists, know what "cavities" are. - Dozenist talk 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. As a rule of thumb, if I (a non-dentist) am rather familiar with the dental subject, surely it has to be one of the top two on the scale . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dental Caries vs. Cavities

I remember this coming up somewhere before but I can't remember exactly where. In the first sentence it is absolutely NOT correct to say 'otherwise known as dental cavities". Caries can cause cavitation, but not always, especially in the case of remineralisable early carious lesions. So to say caries and cavities are the same is not correct, despite the recommendations of the peer review. I think this needs to be clarified.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 16:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

rampant caries and methamphetamine use

Can anyone add some explanation to the section that mentions methamphetamine use as a cause of rampant caries? I found that an interesting correlation, but there is nothing to explain the mechanism in the article. Presumably someone familiar with the issue could add a sentence or two to clarify it. Otherwise this is a very good article and the pictures alone might scare some children into brushing their teeth (along the lines of the Simpsons’ “Big Book of British Smiles”). -Fenevad 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I went and found the explanation myself and will add it in. -Fenevad 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Coca cola and culinary history

I just removed the following text put in by Alesnormales:

More specifically, tooth decay (dental caries) was not a major problem before the fateful year of 1886. That was the year that Coca Cola was first invented and marketed.

Prior to the mass marketing of Coca Cola, Americans (and the rest of the world) tended to eat sweet foods only at meal times, which in an agrarian society happened at only two or three discreet times a day. Meals were high in fat, but fairly low in sugar, and the closest most people got to sugar during the course of a week was a slice or two of mom’s apple pie. In general, tooth decay wasn’t all that much of a problem with most Americans unless they were among the upper classes. Rich folks were somewhat more likely to indulge in recreational eating and could afford to hire cooks and servants whose livelihood was dependent on pleasing their employers.

The article probably could use more on the effects of sugary and acidic drinks on tooth decay, but this text is simply wrong in describing culinary habits around the world on a historical basis, and asserting that Coca Cola's introduction in 1886 first led to caries being a major problem is contradicted by the rest of the article. I am going to add a few sentences back in to the end of the section where I removed this text, but someone with more knowledge on the subject should be able to make it better. +Fenevad 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, as I look at the existing article, I believe this topic is covered adequately, although perhaps a mention of the particular role of softdrinks (assuming there actually is one that is demonstrable, rather than asserted) would be helpful.-Fenevad 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is something to this argument. It comes from:

http://www.doctorspiller.com/Tooth_Decay.htm#History

As I have just googled it. Some mention of the societal changes around the globe do belong in the article. And Coca Cola is a world wide product...

Noserider 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The social changes, are, however, already addressed, and it is impossible to blame tooth decay, as a phenomenon, on Coca Cola in particular. If the article starts listing individual products as culpable, then what grounds are there for deciding which ones are to blame? Coca cola, but not Pepsi Cola? Big Red gum but not Juicy Fruit? Better not to start down this road in the first place since refined sugars, not a specific product, are the issue. The problem also remains that the specific social changes cited in the deleted passage are simply ahistorical and based on idealization of the past, not anything factual about eating habits of real people in the past. It asserts, but does not document, that caries was not a problem for most Americans prior to Coca Cola. If you want to assert that, then please document and demonstrate it, and no, some page you found on Google -- no matter how convincing it seems -- doesn't cut it, unless it can point to some real evidence to back up its claims. -11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Depression

is it common for it to cause depression? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

--Disease in general can cause depression.

Benzimidazoles

Benzimidazoles(such as Prilosec) have shown promise in preventing caries. anyone want to research this?

Fluoride

The section on treatment and prevention was bias and against WP:NPOV i added a sentance about the adverse affects and linked it through to the wikipedia article on Dental fluorosis (82.47.164.103 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

someone reverted my changes today with no reason specified, please come and talk here about the issue instead of just reverting changes, while fluoride may have benefits it also has serious negative effects on teeth and this must be included to not violate WP:NPOV (82.47.164.103 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

when i checked the history page the reason given was poor grammar and no sources, i thought linking through to the Dental fluorosis would be adequate but if you require sources i will provide them, i am just unsure how to add them. here is just one quote from http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/casestudies/fluorosismed.htm

"CASE STUDY FOR THE 4TH YEAR COURSE IN ECOSYSTEM HEALTH DENTAL FLUOROSIS"

"Dental Fluorosis: The most obvious and easily diagnosed form of Fluorosis by a characteristic bilateral white mottling of the dentition. Dental Fluorosis is usually caused by over-exposure to Fluoride when the dental enamel is actively mineralizing during early childhood."

if you can tell me how to add this source i would be more than happy to, as for my wording it believe it is gramatically correct, please state any specific concern you have with my grammar (82.47.164.103 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

No capitalisation, no new paragraph, not written in encyclopaedic style, topic is already covered in the article [dental fluorosis], fluoride is not a heavy metal, dental fluorosis is not generally serious. Fluoride is toxic if consumed, but in order to reach the LD50 for humans at the usual concentration of fluoride in water (0.6-1ppm) in fluoridated regions, one would have to consume about 600 gallons of water in one sitting, I think. My maths may be off. This article is not about fluoride. It is about caries, and therefore should include a section about preventive measures. However, side effects of fluoride use are somewhat outside the scope of this article; we want to talk about how to prevent caries, not the side effects of systemic fluoride delivery. There are (I believe) several other articles which cover the latter topic. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In agreement with Dr-G, the first word was not capitalize and the language was not in encyclopedic style, but that is not the most important reason to reverting your edits. The substance is incorrect. Fluoride is a heavy metal? Fluoridated water supply "combined with the use of toothpaste's containing fluoride" does not "usually" cause fluorosis. And to say fluoride is "highly toxic if consumed" is not reasonably possible within a discussion of fluoridated water, as again Dr. G pointed out. Fluoride therapy, in water, salt, milk, or in a concentrated form, is used in dentistry all around the world. Moreover, all these topics are discussed at length at water fluoridation controversy, where the discussion belongs, and in that article you can find a large number of references that demonstrate scientific and medical support for fluoride therapy. - Dozenist talk 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, if it is being covered elsewhere. i will remove it and i realise now it's a compound and not a heavy metal :S (82.47.164.103 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

heh looks like one of you removed it first, oh well (82.47.164.103 00:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Aherm

Excuse me, but some *DO* argue that it is caused by Chuck Norris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.195.197 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amalgam

I think the toxicity of mercury amalgam fillings deserves a brief mention here and a link to its own article. Anybody else care to offer their thoughts? — NRen2k5 10:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has almost nothing to say about amalgam. No reason to go into excessive detail here; there are enough articles on the subject already. · jersyko talk 15:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct time to brush

According to the study located at http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=73922&Ausgabe=229687&ProduktNr=224219 (published within the Caries Research journal): "it is concluded that for protection of dentin surfaces at least 30 min should elapse before toothbrushing after an erosive attack". -- 17:18, 27 MatthewKarlsen December 2007 (UTC)