Talk:Calculus (dental)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Dentistry (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone know, if there where any cases of retinal detachment following ultrasonic calculus removal ? I know about one case, who had it following the procedure, at 2 weeks.(But he also had severe myopia and lens implants-both favorizing the detachment.) I am taking advantage of the global knowledge: is this case a pure coincidence, or are there any other cases? Sincerely, DokX

I have not heard about that happening or of that risk from using the ultrasonic. Sounds like a very unique case. - Dozenist talk 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the word "calculus" in connection with this usage might be interesting. I haven't been able to track down the etymology. Chrisbbehrens 23:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Calculus" comes from an ancient greek word for "stone", and its appearence in math is more interesting. Maybe they counted with stones? 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Math got associated with stones because in Roman times, when someone got a taxi ride, the cart was hooked up to a device that dropped a rock into a holder every so often. Thus, when the passenger arrived at his destination, the driver would "calculate" the passenger's fare. I have the book that's the source of this; it's a vocab book — it might have been 30 Days to Words of Power. QuarterNotes (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Periodontal and Systemic Disease Links[edit]

I replaced this fact and provided a reference. I did my final year dissertation on this topic, so any questions you may have, feel free to ask. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone provide anything on what constitutes calculus? Knowing the mechanics behind calculus formation might lead to improved techniques for its prevention and removal. Nahum Reduta (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Adams claims it's made of calcium phosphate, or in essence, it's made of TEETH. That's bizarre to me, since plaque is made of bacterial goo, and having teeth covered in calcium is a -good- thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[1] has some good info. Steved424 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is Calcium Phosphate Salt - it is ionic and electrically unstable. That is why calcified bacteria end up in tight accumulations - they are all electrically attracted to the same places. Once accumulation begins, smaller pieces of calcium phosphate salt fill in around the calcified bacteria and make the accumulations mechanically strong. That's what all the scraping is about.

But calculus can be taken apart chemically. When calculus is surrounded by a sequestering agent, such as an STPP solution, the attachment components are highly susceptible to being electrically neutralized by the introduction of sodium fluoride (charge -1). Neutralized calculus components float free and do not reattach.

This concept has been productized and does work. It is delivered to sub-g calculus formations via an oral irrigator or sub-g syringe. Takes about 30 – 120 applications and is done at home once or twice a day. There are a lot of testimonials and anecdotal evidence that it dissolves sub-g calc, but there is also a youtube video made by a periodontist in Oakland, CA using a periodontal endoscope. Posted in March, 2008, the 60 day before/after video shows complete calculus dissolution. The product name is Periogen and that is what the video is listed under.


I put a {{tone}} tag on the article mostly because of its adjectives. Eg from the intro alone, "continuous presence", "rough surface", "ideal medium", "unaesthetic stains". These constitute subjective statements, not encyclopedic in nature. --Una Smith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean ?[edit]

Quote: "Calculus absorbs unaesthetic stains far more easily than natural teeth." -- ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that calculus stains more easily than tooth structure. Because tooth structure exists preformed when it enters the oral cavity, it must undergo staining much like anything else that is preformed, such as a wall or a table. Calculus, however, forms from plaque that remains in the mouth and becomes calcified by salivary components, such as calcium and magnesium. Thus, stain is more easily taken up by calculus because concentric layers form in the environment of stains that become integrated into the fabric, so to speak, of the calculus. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Section on dissolution[edit]

Perhaps this section ought to be removed; it appears to be speculative in nature and expresses a serious misunderstanding of both the action of fluoride ions in dental systems and of chelation in general: fluoride ions can in no way serve as a chelating agent.

Calculus disolution has been documented in JADA since 1985. Sodium Fluoride combined with Pyrophophates removes calculus, period. Please review the research. Periogen does not harm bacteria, and thus is not under the control of the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talkcontribs) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please carefully observe the before/after supra-gingival photos. Calculus dissolution is real.

Dental calculus is comprised almost entirely of calcium phosphate salt, which is an unstable ion that has lost two electrons. Sodium fluoride is also an ion which has lost one electron. The two bond easily; which reduces electrostatic attraction. This is the nature of calculus dissolution.

Just look at the photos – is there any other explanation for reduced calculus accumulations?

You are free to contact me at should you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talkcontribs) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising untested products. I'm removing this section. If you want to put it back, please provide a reliable medical source, rather than photos from a single patient, which constitute original research. Regards. (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In my original posting, in 2008, I took great pains to describe calculus dissolution without reference to a product name. That entry was deleted months later by an anonymous “contributor.” I have since tried to include data that is relevant and that can be verified.

The fact remains that the before/after pictures of the lingual incisors of a daily Periogen user proves calculus dissolution is real. These photos, and others, are being collected by an independent dentist, Dr Gary Lewandowski, out of his practice in Bremerton, Washington. Dr. Lewandowski has indicated to me that he will submit case studies following the 6-month mark in his dissolution study, after patients return in mid-August, 2010. I have no control over that.

In any case, this data is the most relevant input to the Dental Calculus Wikipedia page imaginable. The thumbnail photos can be enlarged for evaluation from skeptical dental professionals. It is vital that this discovery be available for critical review and not arbitrarily deleted.

With regard to reliable medical source and original research issues, the FDA has ruled that anti-calculus claims are cosmetic claims, not drug claims. Periogen is not a medicine; it is a dental water softener with a cosmetic claim of the dissolution of unsightly calculus.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talkcontribs) 05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 
Hi again, Doug. Please actually go and read the original research policy page. The first two sentences: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." This very clearly applies to the content you keep adding. Also relevant is the opening line of the Verifiability policy page, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So it is great if this content gets published, but until then it really is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I wish you luck, but I am removing this section again, and will keep doing so until you provide a citation from a reliable source. (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Once Again: According to Wikipedia, Research can be defined as the search for knowledge or any systematic investigation to establish facts.

Documentation refers to the process of providing evidence or to the communicable material used to provide such documentation.

My material documents calculus dissolution. You seem very determined to suppress a couple of photographs. I am curious as to your motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talkcontribs) 07:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as I agree that section is just not encyclopaedic and far too close to being an advertisement for your product. As someone mentioned above, please do look at WP:OR and WP:REF. And beware of WP:3RR. You should aim to get WP:Consensus here before adding it back. Thanks. Mcewan (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all product references. The photos presented are independently developed. Can we now establish some limited consensus in the calculus dissolution discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talkcontribs) 09:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't just about the product references. Wikipedia does not include original research, which this section is. Please actually read the WP:OR and WP:REF. And don't question our motivation. Part of the success of Wikipedia is due to its excellent inclusion policies, and we simply seek to see them upheld. Read the original research links, and then if you still think the information should be included, come and present your argument on the talk page. Please don't just keep adding material that obviously goes against wiki policy and current consensus. Manbeargore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

It is not appropriate for you to wontedly delete Wikipedia registered photographs. Comment as you will; but the photos are as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

product placement[edit]

the bugmore contributor and other aliases should state in *every* submission: his/her/their/individual and / or corporate affinity, to any vested interests. - Otherwise, it's just like reading the top 'results' in a certain search engine. - A preponderance of unverified rave reviews there reeks of mountebanking and marketing and charlatanry and snake-oil product-placement, postulation. - Short word for all that is 'plugging'. - No place for that in an encyclopedia, online or otherwise. - That's my three cents worth. - I suggest treat with reserve the mention of any cure-all product until it gets verifiable independent evaluation. - Otherwise any quack may use the medium with impunity. (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Treatment Options and Product Placement as it relates to the treatment of Dental Calculus: **treatment option listed below requires source listing, I mention it only to serve as a jumping off point for future contributors to this page**

Product placement, or rather a specific product mention can be avoided entirely, while still leading wiki users to effective products by listing ingredient (i.e.sodium hexametaphosphate) /compounds/product types with unnamed brands (i.e. toothpaste). This would go a long way to striking a balance between not posting specific brand mention (shilling) while still providing readers with a treatment option. Since no course of action has been listed on this page, this is something to consider should treatments be listed in the future.

***Below is information about common toothpaste ingredient beneficial to treatment of Dental Calculus. Added here to highlight a means of offering treatment options without product placement**

Sodium hexametaphosphate is helpful in the treatment of this, so that was a specific example that actually relates to this entry. Toothpastes containing sodium hexametaphosphate may be helpful in the treatment of dental calculus. (Voila, no brand mention!) Please add future sources to Calculus Removal section. (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs Information Regarding Removal of Calculus[edit]

The article doesn't mention how calculus is mechanically removed (physically removed using surgical tools), and the section regarding chemical dissolution is immensely unclear, nor does it cite any sources. I have added the appropriate tags. LiamSP (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sodium Hexametaphosphate I agree this requires further information about the removal of Calculus. Apart from physical removal, from what information I have been able to obtain sodium hexametaphosphate is helpful in the treatment of this, so that was a specific example that actually relates to this entry. Toothpastes containing sodium hexametaphosphate may be helpful in the treatment of dental calculus. (Voila, no brand mention!) I am unable to post specific sources at this moment (time constraints), however a quick search yielded results therefore if someone is interested in contributing treatment options in the future, that might be a good place to start. There is data and information on that particular treatment option available so it shouldn't be a problem to provide reliable sources if one has the time.

Not sure if this would be helpful without the specific citations, but here is a temporary list of treatment options, which could serve as a jumping off point for future amendments made to this section on the page:

  • Physical Removal
  • Sodium Hexametaphosphate (ingredient found in many toothpastes)
  • -
  • -
  • -
  • -
  • - (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Formation Section needs review[edit]

The final section of the article on the formation of dental calculus needs review by an oral biochemist. The discussion of the formation mechanism of dental plaque demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic physics and chemistry principles for salt properties and mineral deposition. The moist environment of the mouth and the ceramic nature of the teeth are unlikely to allow significant charge imbalance on the surface of the teeth that could create preferential mobility of ions in the saliva, and charge neutrality of the depositing calcium phosphate must be maintained. The site where calculus forms must attract an equivalent portion of Ca2+ and PO43- ions to make the salt deposit. Any electrical imbalance would attract either calcium or phosphate and repel the other, leading to poor formation.

Just taking a guess, I would say that dental calculus is mineralized through the same mechanisms that remineralize the enamel after an acidic meal. However, I do not have a reference, and I would appreciate the input of an expert.

97DA12 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

tooth eruption[edit]

The article need more information about tooth eruption

Idrisadambd (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)