Talk:Alveolar osteitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dentistry (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Only one source is sited and the link at the bottom of the page flat out contradicts information given in this article.


Did someone write in that stuff about Alvogyl as a promotion? It reads like marketing language.

Article name[edit]

To correspond with the standard of medical articles, we should move this article to the correct name of the disease, "alveolar osteitis." See The naming issue. - Dozenist talk 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely obvious that alveolar osteitis refers particularly to dry socket or that the term dry socket is not the correct term for a disease entity, as can be seen from the Amler paper from which I have quoted extensively. I hope my edits are a welcomed change from the largely unsourced and sometimes contrary-to-that-which-is-sourced material that I replaced. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to[edit]

This site is very unhelpful, has terrible spelling and grammar and seems only to exist to place ads all over the page. Removed.

comparing pain to cavities?[edit]

When cavaties expose the nerve that goes to the tooth, there is usually a fair amount of pain. How does the pain of a "dry socket" compare to that? Based on reading the articles, it sounds like the source of the pain is different (dry sockets are painful because of an exposed portion of bone?--Another Person, it is not just the portion of the bone it is the nerve to all your lower teeth) TerraFrost 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing like the pain of cavities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It is PAINFUL[edit]

As a current sufferer of "dry sockets' I can confirm the fact that it is painful. Yes, the bone is still alive along with all its nerves. Bpaje 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a lower wisdom tooth removal 7 days ago - 2 days ago I started having pain subsequently diagnosed as dry socket. It is very painful and no pain relief seems to make any difference ( ibuprofen, cocodamol, voltarol etc ). My consultant has called me in this afternoon to have the socket washed out. I will let you know how effective this was.

Alveolar osteitis -- how long does it last?[edit]

This affliction is the most painful I've experienced. Three weeks after having all wisdom teeth removed, the area with dry socket is still radiating pain and I'm still taking lots of ibuprofen. How long does it typically last? CuriousfromTX 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually, the pain from a "dry socket" goes away almost instantly when the dentist treats you for the pain with a dressing. I emphasize "usually". - Dozenist talk 21:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

which part of the menstrual cycle?[edit]

"Additional factors increasing risk of dry socket include the use of oral contraceptives by female patients, and the amount of surgically-induced trauma to the bone required at the time of the procedure (for this reason, operator experience plays a role). Some also suggest that women are at higher risk than men for developing dry socket. Theoretically this is because estrogen levels are lower during that part of the menstrual cycle."

The menstrual cycle is mentioned in the last sentence, but it is not previously mentioned. The word "that" doesn't seem to be referring to anything.

The original text read: "Dentists should recommend their female patients to have extractions during the last five days of their menstrual cycle to minimize chances of developing dry socket because the estrogen levels are lower during that part of the cycle." This made more sense (though there should be a comma between "socket" and "because"). 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

blood flow[edit]

I've had three 3rd molars (wisdom teeth), and two 2nd molars extracted. The second of the 2nd molars I had extracted just yesterday. I've *never* had a dry socket, but I'm a little worried. This time it wasn't a simple extraction, the tooth had to be taken out in about 8 pieces. Literally spent about an hour of time to extract the tooth, and I was left with some stitches. I've got some minor swelling now (never had ANY with the rest which were simple). I even smoked some (only a little though) after having the teeth extracted. This time I'm really nervous because of the extra trauma. I had very very very little trauma before.. *this time bone was clipped and gums were cut*. It was one hellish extraction but things already seem to be healing up well, except for the gaping hole I try my best to keep any food and/or debris out of.

Update: 2 weeks and no dry socket.

Anyways, on to my vague question that maybe someone can answer. If dry sockets are really caused by bad blood flow to certain areas of the jaw then I should be pretty close to immune, because two different dentists have commented about the amount of blood that came out whenever I've gotten a tooth extracted. Yesterday the dentist mentioned my jawbone tissue bled more and easier than most, again confirming I have good blood flow to that section of my jaw. Also that my jawbone was "hard as granite", even if my teeth crumble easily. Am I jumping to conclusions or making any wrong assumptions here?

Anyways, given that I seem to have abnormally high blood flow to that section of my jaw, does this mean my chances of developing alveolar osteitis are next to nill? No this does not mean your chances of developing Dry Socket will be next to nill, but you do stand a bit better chance of not getting it, but it does not mean you won't get dry socket.


This is not your blog. (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

when can i start smoking after iv had the dry socket thing start?[edit]

ok well after i had my wisdom teeth removed, well i was too out of it from the drugs the dentist gave me to hear the rules. i smoked and ended up getting the dry socket and i was wondering how soon after it has started can i start smoking again? because i dont want to make things worse than they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

48 to 72 Hours after you get Dry Socket, but if you can go longer the better and faster the pain will go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whati's it called when there's a pocket 20 years later?[edit]

I'm about 37 and it's been probably 20 years since my impacted wisdom teeth were removed. For the most part the bone behind the rear molars seemed to heal over and fill in the space where the molars were, but it apparently didn't complete all the way.

In the back on the bottom on both sides behind the remaining molars, there is a soft fleshy area towards inside that appears to have a small inner cavity that has never "filled in" completely. The outer edge of the fleshy gum towards the cheeks is hard and smooth, but towards the inside on both sides by the tongue there's this soft area.

Occasionally these soft areas get inflamed and apparently food particles (or bacteria, or something) are getting down inside the cavity along the edge around the back molars. It's uncomfortable but it isn't a shooting stabbing pain... but it feels like something is "in" there behind the molars.

My solution has been to flush the pockets with 3% hydrogen peroxide (brown bottle from pharmacy).. tilt my head back and to the side, put small amount of H2O2 in my mouth, and then use one of my fingers to rhythmically apply pressure to the soft fleshy area ("pump it") behind the back molar.

I can feel the H2O2 "slosh" in and out of the pocket, and after I spit out the excess H2O2, I can feel it continue to foam and bubble, and work its way deep down into pocket along my back molars. Repeat on the other side if that's inflamed too, wait a few minutes for the fizzing to stop, then rinse and pump the fleshy areas with water, and do the H2O2 flush one more time.

If I do this hydrogen peroxide flushing for a couple days the pockets appear to clear out, the unpleasant sensations go away, and I stop noticing them, for another year or three...

The cause is unknown, but I will say that for the past couple days I have been eating lots of dry in-the-shell peanuts, which I haven't done in a long time. Those hard little chewed-up particles may be getting wedged down into the pockets along the back of the molars.

I have no idea if this is a dry socket, or some other medical condition. It sounds like a dry socket. DMahalko (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is talk page abuse...WP:NOTAFORUM...but no it doesn't sound like dry socket which is an acute condition. See a medical professional, we can't give out medical advice... Lesion (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reworked article as per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS[edit]

  • Ended up removing all sources from article...
  • Noted also much "blogging" on this talk page, please do not do this, as per WP:NOTAFORUM. Lesion (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rework/rewrite tag[edit]

Discussion about the tags that were placed on this article occurred on this user's talk page: User_talk:Qwerty_Binary#Alveolar_osteitis. If there are any further requests, I am happy to discuss here, or anyone can edit the page as they see fit ofc. Lesion (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have today removed the rewrite tag, initially placed in Sept 2013. A discussion took place on this user's talk page, which I copy here for reference before it gets archived there. Conclusion: in good faith, this tag appears to have been forgotten, or there is no interest in providing further feedback or justification for its presence from the user who placed it. Lesion (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion from a user talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for you work on the above page to make it comply with other encyclopedia articles. I am concerned about the "cleanup-rewrite" tag, since I was mostly responsible for the content of that page, and I've probably written many other pages in a similar way. I request more detail about what is wrong and how to correct this, thanks. Lesion (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. It's been a week or so since you placed the rewrite tag on the above article. Placing tags with no explanation on the talk page is discouraged. I am willing to discuss any changes you suggest, but otherwise I think it is appropriate to remove the unqualified tag... Lesion (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Lesion. Apologies for the lack of reply and for this untimely reply.
I have been thinking about this, but I honestly don't precisely know how to better restructure or rewrite the page at this juncture. In my mind, I think it would be nice to have more structure (Etymology, History, Epidemiology, Signs and Symptoms, Causes / Pathophysiology, Management (with subsections for Diagnosis, Prevention, Treatment, Prognosis)?) or flow to the article.
As a side thing, surely, while tagging pages without further qualification shouldn't be condoned, wouldn't it be better to tag a page that would reasonably require action than not tagging it at all? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with you on the last point, and if I'm honest I do this too, but I was near quoting from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup: "Avoid "drive-by" tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below"
Re. changes to the article, I was expecting that you wanted more changes than this, so it is a surprise. For headings, tend to follow the recommended wording and order of headers for disease type medical articles:
  • Classification
  • Signs and symptoms
  • Causes
  • (Pathophysiology)
  • Diagnosis
  • Prevention
  • Treatment
  • Prognosis
  • Epidemiology
  • (History)
  • (Society and culture
  • (Research directions
  • (Special populations
  • (Other animals
I have bracketed some headings in this list because in this article there is currently no such content for these sections. The only issues I can see is that "epidemiology" should be moved to the end of the article instead of the beginning. However this is just a guide and it is not necessarily the best way to order things on all such articles. The etymology section is also about classification, so it might be argued that this section be split or renamed "classification". Since the MOS doesn't mention where to put the etymology, I assume at the beginning is a logical place. Lesion (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a cursory reply for now, but I prefer to have history and epidemiology towards the top of an article, as context, introducing the disease entity in terms of its developments and in terms of its significance. This, naturally, is after a lead (lede) section at the very top of an article. Following this, I would then prefer to read on the more clinical facets of a given disease. Any thoughts to that? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There were no details of the epidemiology in the lead to give the article context from the beginning ... the lead is supposed to summarize every section of the article. I like to try to follow the above order of headings for consistency between articles more than anything else. They are a relic from before my time on wikipedia, but I assume like everything else a lot of discussion over the earky years, a process of evolution, has resulted in something fit for purpose that should be followed unquestioningly ... but then again maybe that is terrible logic. Perhaps the people who decided on that order were acknowledging that most people are more interested in the signs and symptoms and the causes of the condition rather than an epidemiology section.

Therefore I've expanded the lead so there is some epidemiology at the beginning, and split the classification, and moved the epidemiology section to the end. There is no mention where to put etymology, so I sometimes just put it at the beginning of the classification section for want of anywhere better to put it, and because it gets it out of the way at the beginning ...

See what you think, and please feel free to make more changes/suggestions. Lesion (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I linked to this discussion from the alveolar osteitis talk page for reference. Lesion (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.