From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links[edit]

I checked each entry in the external links section and removed over a dozen. WP is not a web directory, and the fact that there are no paid ads here doesn't mean that we should carry unpaid ads. I left in place what seems useful enough, but I don't claim to be an authority. Rl 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried adding to the external links section and it was removed. Dentalcompare is a resource for dental professionals to keep up-to-date with the industry. Its compiled a product directory where dentists can search and compare products, alongside news, editorial, videos, and education for dental professionals. The site does not sell any products, so i'm not sure why it's being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Related dental topics cull[edit]

I think this section is not needed. The Category of Dentistry can easily be used to find any of these articles. I say it should be removed.Bouncingmolar 04:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See also[edit]

This list is now huge. I think people have tried trimming it but it's turned into a directory. I suggest removing those items that appear as links elsewhere in the main text. This is of course the main point of see also anyway. I will do it myself soon if there are no objections. Also, there are one or two basic dentistry concepts here that are perhaps best suited to their other home in the list on Outline of dentistry#Basic dentistry concepts. --Wikiphile1603 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First Dental School?[edit]

This article sites the first dental school to be in Maryland. from 1840. But there was a very small dental school operating in Bainbridge, Ohio, as early as 1828. The School in Baltimore may well be the oldest still in operation, and certainly much larger, but it cannot be called the first one in the world, or even the U.S.

Unless there is some other criteria I fail to see, it would seem this small section need be corrected.

The first dental school not open in Baltimore 1840.It was open in Bainbridge ohio by Dr. John M. Harris in 1828, the school is now a museum. John M harris younger brother Chappin A Harris went on to co-found the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery in 1840, 12 years after Johns founding in Ohio. The information for this is sighthed already on wikipedia under a general search for Bainbridge, Ross County, Ohio ([[1]]). Levi 62 12 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


This page needs work - for a start I moved the big list of orgainizations to List of dental organizations not because I like lists but because it was dominating the contents of the page. I also edited out some of the external links: I think peer review journals could go here but these seemed very advertising heavy sites. Complain if anyone wants them back Revatim 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This article requires extensive cleaning up, throughout. Almost all quotations and information and about the history of dentistry are unsourced, and given that this is a very broad topic, these claims should be relatively easy to cite, one would think --Hadseys (talkcontribs) 12:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Panoramic Radiograph[edit]

  • I wonder if that huge x-ray image is representative of dental x-ray? In general dentistry the areas x-rayed tend be limited to a few or several teeth, in my limited experience (see dental phobia). A-giau 17:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The dental x-ray shown is a Panograph, a kind of dental extraoral (film not in the mouth) radiograph using tomography. These are generally not used for a diagnosing dental caries because the image isn't sharp enought, but are for examining both jaws at once to evaluate impacted teeth, eruption patterns (children), trauma, identify diseases of the jaw, bone loss, large lesions, etc. LEN, RDH.
  • The dental x-ray shown is also known as an "orthopantomograph" or OPG.
    -'Izz DDS

The concept of just what is representative of dental x-rays is changing, much as the concept of conventional photography is changing. Although the vast majority of dental radiographs, both intraoral and extraoral, are recorded on conventional photographic emulsion, the move toward digital imaging is progressing. This will continue to occur, despite the fact that current attempts to contain health care costs are not doing anything to facilitate technological progress.--
Mark Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the image leading the dentistry page should be a periapical or bitewing film. This would be much more indicative of that which dentists primarily use on a daily basis.

Dentists and medical doctors[edit]

Why is the training of dentists seperate to the training of other medical doctors? Dentistry is surely just another medical speciality? --Oldak Quill 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In its methadology, dentistry is predominantly a surgical discipline, and it would be difficult to argue for some objective distinction between the nuts and bolts of dentistry from that of surgery. However, dentistry is historically an offshoot of barbering and blacksmithing-- a sideline occupation that was at the time not suited as a separate profession in itself. It is a relatively recent event that dentistry was considered an occupation worthy of a distinct, separate profession. Because of its historical development as a profession independent of medicine, it is not considered a medical specialty. Universities that have both a medical and dental school commonly share pre-clinical basic science courses of study, but the classes diverge once the curriculum moves on the the clinical phase. Whereas the medical specialties require the completion of a medical degree, dental practice, including the dental specialties, entails the earning of a doctoral-level dental degree. These degrees are legally recognized as granting the right to practice solely in their corresponding professions-- a dental degree does not permit the practice of medicine, and a medical degree does not permit the practice of dentistry. (There is nothing to prevent a person from completing both a dental and medical course of study, leading to both dental and medical degrees. This is most commonly seen in the case of practitioners in the dental specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery, where the holding of a medical degree offers the political expedient of increasing priviledges in a hospital setting.)
So, dentistry has come to resemble medicine as it has developed from a trade to a science-based profession by a process, to use a metaphor, of convergent evolution. This is, by the way, no different from the development of any of a number of other health professions, such as podiatry, optometry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a host of others. Although they may intuitively seem like branches or specialties of medicine, their origins were independent, and they remain legally distinct professions.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of this commentary shoud go into the article, Mark, along with further commentary about the "side effects" of the traditional division of "medicine" and the fact that health insurance companies can offer plans that they claim are "comprehensive" of all health needs while utter failing to cover anything related to dentistry, even medically nessesary dental procedures such as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon might need to perform. 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

doctors and dentists?[edit]

A dentist is a doctor qualifed to practice dentistry

Is that appropriate, are dentists really 'doctors'? Would it be more appropriate to have something like:

  • A dentist is a health professional qualifed to practice dentistry
  • A dentist is a professional qualifed to practice dentistry
  • A dentist is a person qualifed to practice dentistry
At least in the United States, training that is sufficient to qualify a person to legally practice dentistry requires the attainment of a doctoral-level degree-- either the Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) degree. So, the appellation "doctor" when referring to a dentist is correct.
Your confusion stems from the vernacular use of the term "doctor" to refer to a physician, but such use is imprecise-- MD and DO degrees are but two of many doctoral degrees.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This may be true in the United States, but in other countries its not necessarily the case (for example Australia and New Zealand). There is no MD, DO, DDS or DMD in many countries. In fact, dentists earn a Bachelor Degree in most countries. Is this not an article on Dentistry throughout the world, not just the United States?
Admittedly, I speak from my perspective as a resident of the United States; a dentist is a doctor in the U.S, and I cannot comment on the situation in other countries. Perhaps this is simply a matter of custom, or perhaps it reflects a difference in the training and/or qualifications of dentists in different countries. I invite anyone to provide additional information...--Mark Bornfeld DDS 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ľ ľ Ň: As a resident of Canada, a Dentist is a Doctor. While the British system worldwide gives out Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS, BChD) or Bachelor of Medicine (MB) degrees, here in North America we are bestowed an undergraduate Doctoral degree (DDS or DMD). The word "Doctor" means "Teacher" in Latin, therefore, appropriately given to the PhD's/professors in the not-too-distant past. Only recently, Physicians are designated with that title and the general population's interpretation as such. Charles Lin, DDS, MBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

In the UK, Dentists are also allowed to call themselves "Doctor", despite it being a "Bachelor Degree" I'd imagine it's the same in most other Countries outside of the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In China and most of Asia, MD is translated to "a person that practices medicine(醫師)", DDS is translated to "a person that practices medicine on the teeth(牙醫師)", and PhD is translated to "a person that has a lot of knowledge(博士)". MDs and DDSs are both referred to as "a person that practices medicine(醫師)" in conversation or text, used as a suffix. A person named "林" would be referred to as "林醫師", regardless of being a MD or DDS. As you can see, the use of characters differentiate MDs and DDSs from PhD. The use of the suffix is similar to the use of Dr. as a prefix in hospital settings in the US where MDs and DDSs are referred to as doctors while a technician with a PhD may not referred to as a doctor. This fact also reflect the fact that MDs and DDSs are considered different but are both "doctors" in medical care, regardless of MDs and DDSs both being offered as undergraduate programs in this region. It is also important to know that the scope of practice of MDs and DDSs are similar throughout the world, regardless of the education system.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 

A query regarding adding a site link to the page "dentistry"[edit]

Hi My name is Jules Katz. I have created an online dental directory for Europe.


The only one of it's kind.

The site is free for people to find good quality, economical dental work in Europe.

The site is

I had added a link on Wikipedia, under dentistry, under external links, at the bottom of the page.

Can you confirm if this will be of use to your members please and how i added the link was ok please. As i think it was removed.

I emailed Wikipedia and they kindly replied.

They said i should please post on the discussion page of the article so that i and other editors of the article can discuss its inclusion.

I would also like to write an article relating to European dentistry, and the advantages due to cost and quality, in comparison to other countries.

I find Wikipedia most interesting and was keen to place our site, within yours, to help others find more economical dental options.

Can someone please advise on the best method for EuroDentists being placed within Wikipedia, so individuals can learn more about dental treatments in Europe.

Many thanks


Jules-- Wikipedia discourages the placement of links that do not serve the goal of contributing relevant information. The intent of a link pointing to a dentist directory is not to convey information about either the practice or profession of dentistry per se, but to provide increased web traffic to a commercial site that promotes individual dental practices. This not only does not contribute value to the article, but also undermines the credibility of article content. The Wikipedia guidelines that apply are as follows:

3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. 4. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

This is to take nothing away from the value of your site, but just to point out that inclusion here is inappropriate.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dentistry throughout the world[edit]

I suggest a split of this section from the main article. It is mainly a list of oraganizations and colleges related to dentistry around the world. At least a consistent formatting of the section is badly needed. -- Szvest 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I think making it into a new article is a great idea. It would reduce the clutter of the article. - Dozenist talk 07:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree to it. I was looking for more technical (Medical) information about Dentistry. I dont need a page of information on Dentistry throughout the world. --Phoe6
I support this as well. Dentistry itself, the science of it, is pretty unrelated to that particular section. Switchercat talkcont 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I too support this - I was rather disappointed by this page - when looking for information on Dentistry (of a more technical nature), this great long list of more irrelevant content was exactly the opposite of what i wanted. Therefore, I strongly support a move. Martinp23 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Support Too much info that can be split into another page, making navigation much easier. Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ctFace-smile-big.svg 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Support KalevTait 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Support This article should be about Dentistry, not the various education facilities in the world that teach it. Billyb 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Support It would make the page a lot more readable. We have the magic of hypertext, lets use it to make a better article Ashley Payne 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay w/ the dentistry article. I can't tell you as a research scientist how anoying it is to click link after link just to find an article that has nothing relevant to the topic. Keeping it on the main page just makes life easier.

it should be done asap...

The content has been split. Yay! - Dozenist talk 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The title Dentistry around the world should be more appropriately named to World Dentistry Education.. Dentistry around the world would contain information about differences in philosophy and history of dentistry in different countries. however this appears to cover the courses and universities available to become a dentist. Furthermore (sorry to keep harping on about dental auxiliaries) dentistry education.... seeing as this is a dentistry page not Dentist page, should logically also cover auxiliary schools, a mamoth boring task which illustrates how boring this section can be. Bouncingmolar 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dental Organisations[edit]

I am also happy that World dentistry has been split. I would like to extend this logic to Dental organisations as well. I feel that this adds significant bloat to the dentistry page and perhaps the page may become small after this proposed edit, but perhaps this could be replaced with some more relevant content ;) (Bouncingmolar 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Article rating[edit]

I think clearly the importance of the article is "Top." Please, do not make me explain why. It is more than evident. Come on, the topic and the article share the same name! :-P And I would consider the quality of this article to be a "B". I do not think it would be considered a Good Article. References are needed. It also feels like some information is missing. On such a broad topic, you would think the article would be longer. - Dozenist talk 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the definition of dentistry in the american heritage dictionary, I think that the title dentistry does not adequately describe the content. As it stands it should be called Dentist not dentistry. This article focuses too much on dentists. Dentistry is also performed by the many Dental Auxiliaries as well. -Bouncingmolar 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

  • New topic: Dentist training - information about becoming a dentist should be excluded from the introduction and be moved to a section such as Becoming a dentist or Dentist training, as dds and american specific titles have no relevance to the subject title dentistry
    • this page should be nonspecific to country ie america. American registration and dentistry should come under the heading, dentistry in other countries. which may need to be retitled to something along the lines of 'dentistry education' (world can be omitted as it would be obvious by the subheadings that it is divided into region.)
  • Dentist = Dentistry? Since Dentistry also covers Dental Auxiliaries and dental research, redirecting dentist to this page is perhaps either inapropriate, or dentistry needs its own page and this one should be called dentist, as this page should also include information about the other facets of dentistry other than dentists.
  • New topic: The future of dentistry - to discuss research in dentistry or current trends?
  • reorganising the order of topics: I think history should go at the top
  • Delete Related dental topics. This section seems irrelevant to the topic dentist. It is just a long list of anything dental, people are able to look at the dentistry category. Also the list is not complete and if it was, it would take up miles of scroll bar. -Bouncingmolar 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the section on dental research? Does the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Dental Research [2] have any information on the news articles about growing new teeth?

"Smile! A new Canadian tool can re-grow teeth say inventors" 6-28-06. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton filed for U.S. patents in June 2006. His (Tarek El-Bialy, a new member of the university's dentistry faculty) research was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. With the help of Jie Chen (an engineering professor and nano-circuit design expert) and Ying Tsui (another engineering professor) the initial massive handheld device was shrunk to fit inside a person's mouth. It is still at the prototype stage, but the trio expects to commercialize it within two years, Chen said. The tool operates on low-intensity pulsed ultrasound technology. [3] [4] Larry R. Holmgren 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Growth modification of the mandible with ultrasound in baboons: A preliminary report" American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 130, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 435.e7-435.e14. Tarek El-Bialy, Ali Hassan, Tarik Albaghdadi, Hamed A. Fouad and Abdel Raouf Maimani

"Repair of orthodontically induced root resorption by ultrasound in humans." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 126, Issue 2, August 2004, Pages 186-193. Tarek El-Bialy, Iman El-Shamy and Thomas M. Graber

"Effect of ultrasound on rabbit mandibular incisor formation and eruption after mandibular osteodistraction." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 124, Issue 4, October 2003, Pages 427-434. Tarek H. El-Bialy, Abd El-Moneim Zaki and Carla A. Evans [5] Larry R. Holmgren 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could this be an application or use of tissue "harvested" from aborted human fetuses? Larry R. Holmgren 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Missing teeth section of [6] Larry R. Holmgren 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a Separate 'Dentist' page[edit]

I propose we create a separate Dentist page. Dentistry definition (in article)=

the art and science of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of conditions, diseases, and disorders of the oral cavity, the maxillofacial region, and its associated structures as it relates to human beings

Dentistry should be about Dental Science. At the moment it is about Dentists. If it is contains information about dentists it should also contain information about other faculties of dentistry; dental auxiliary's/dental researchers as they also practice 'dentistry'.

Logic for proposal: veterinarian is separate to veterinary science. Therefore, Dentist should be separate to Dental science/Dentistry -Bouncingmolar 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the page which explains what a DENTIST is? a dentist isn't dentistry. Surely dentist deserves a page of its own separate from the science of dentistry aka dentistry. Why should therapists, hygienists, and veterinarians and physicians get pages dedicated to them separate from the science they practice when dentists don't?? Bouncingmolar (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a dentist page. We need some info so that we can make it an informative article. - Dozenist talk 19:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some info in this page to make a start on the dentist page. Dentistry should be more about current or historical knowledge of oral disease. Dentist should be about the profession, much like the current Dentistry article. Saying as two years later this hasn't been done i'll maybe get round to doing it soon.00:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annekcm (talkcontribs)

Dentists in popular media[edit]

Hi Bouncingmolar, Most of the articles contain references to the popular media references. I dont know why there should not be such a section in an article about dentists. The Yada Yada is an episode of Seinfeld that has a thread based on dentist. I dont know why it was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotolstoy (talkcontribs) 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

oh right you are! Sorry, add it back inBouncingmolar 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tooth Picture Caption[edit]

What tooth is shown in the picture of a "Sagittal section of a tooth". (Same applies to where the picture also appears) Stephanwehner (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a generic molar rather than a particular tooth. -- (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The roots curve distally, and the non-existance of the distobuccal cusp, in addition to it appearing to have a box occusal outline, indicates that it is either the left lower second (more likely) or third molar (#17 or #18 by the universal numbering system). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Do we have a WP article about Apecoectomy? Badagnani (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling seems to be Apicoectomy which redirects to Root End Surgery. Dirac66 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan / India -- emotional edit warring[edit]

Recent reverting makes it sensible to try to achieve consensus here on the Talk page, rather than to continue reverting back and forth in the article.

The first paragraph of the History section now says (my emphasis):

Evidence of dentistry has been found in teeth dating from around 7000 BC to 5500 BC.[2][3] The teeth, showing evidence of holes from dental drills, were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization in Ancient Pakistan.[4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] Evidence of this belief has also been found in Egypt, Japan, Mexico and China[6] and in Pakistan.

Ref#2, BBC in April 2006, says: "Stone age people in Pakistan were using dental drills made of flint 9,000 years ago, according to researchers. Teeth ... in Mehgarh in the country's Baluchistan province..."

Ref#3, MSNBC in April 2006, says: "...the method presumably used in Pakistan to drill teeth 9,000 years ago."

Ref#2 and 3 are reporting on research reported in Nature the same month, Ref #4, which says "...eleven drilled molar crowns from nine adults discovered in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan..." The researchers are, typically, more careful than the journalists. They don't suggest that the drilling happened "in Pakistan", which didn't exist, but that the teeth were found there.

Ref#5 doesn't visit the subcontinent at all.

Ref#6 says: "The medical historians of ancient India, Egypt, Japan and China also make reference to the worm as the cause of tooth-ache." (Pakistan is not mentioned in this interesting document from 1990; neither is Mexico.)

If one follows the link to Indus Valley Civilization, one finds that it primarily was in Pakistan, extending into India and other areas.

My suggestion for a "final" version of this paragraph is:

Evidence of ancient dentistry has been found in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan. Teeth dating from around 7000 BC to 5500 BC show evidence of holes from dental drills, according to a report in Nature in 2006. The teeth were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization.[2][3][4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries[5] and as late as the 1300s AD Guy de Chauliac, the great surgeon of the middle ages, still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay. Evidence of this belief has also been found in ancient India, Egypt, Japan, and China.[6]

I believe that this version correctly reflects what is found in the sources. Mexico can be added back in, if a reference is cited. Objections? --Hordaland (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

anon ip is a troll, changing India->Pakistan in many articles, he'll eventually be blocked or go away.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
(ec) I left a comment on anon's talk page, pointing out that reverting SineBot's addition of a signature to the islamophobe comment above is a no-no. My comment is here. --Hordaland (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is our anon or or both? or more? --Hordaland (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hordaland's version is more neutral. However I would recommend a slight modification. There's no need to state "according to a report in Nature", because the reference should be provided as an in-line citation. I don't think that Guy de Chauliac should be described as "the great surgeon of the middle ages". It's not neutral. Also, the fourth sentence should be split. I recommend: "A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] As late as the 1300s AD Guy de Chauliac, a surgeon of the middle ages, still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay." Axl (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. Referring to Nature in the text is unnecessary; you are right about that. (I was trying to get the year 2006 in there; I'll replace it with "has recently been found".)
  2. "the great surgeon of the middle ages" is a direct quote from the ref; should perhaps be identified as such. Can I put the whole sentence in quotes, without saying in the text who wrote it?
  3. Again, you are very right about splitting the tooth worm sentence! Thanks.
Revised suggestion:
Evidence of ancient dentistry has recently been found in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan. Teeth dating from around 7000 to 5500 BC show evidence of holes from dental drills. The teeth were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization.[2][3][4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] Evidence of this belief has also been found in ancient India, Egypt, Japan, and China. "The legend of the worm is also found in the writings of Homer, as well as the great surgeon of the middle ages, Guy de Chauliac (1300 to 1368 A.D.), who still espoused the belief that worms caused dental decay."[6] The legend of the worm is also found in the writings of Homer, and as late as the 1300s AD the surgeon Guy de Chauliac still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay.[6]
--Hordaland (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Revised --Hordaland (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Hordaland

Thank you. I think I'll wait a couple of days in case of further remarks, before putting my latest suggested paragraph into the article. --Hordaland (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia:Quotations#When not to use quotations. I think that a summary of the quote would be better. The comment about "the great surgeon of the middle ages" would be appropriate for de Chauliac's article, but not for this generic article about dentistry. Axl (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with Hordaland's suggestions, put it in asap, I'll revert to that if need be instead of current version.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
Thank you. Your latest revision is both accurate and neutral. Axl (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote paragraph as per above. (Wish I could charge by the hour for this :-)) Thanks for all the help! --Hordaland (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indus Valley[edit]

its pretty pathetic that its called ancient india indus valley is based mostly in pakistan get this anti pakistan and pro india bias out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "Indus Valley Civilization" should be re-named the "Pakistan Valley Civilization"? Axl (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

and are you suggesting indus valley should be named Indian Valley Civilisation its pretty common sense stuff when you considers that all the main citys of the indus valley are in pakistan it should be ancient pakistan not india thats a totally different country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I understand you. It's ironic that Ancient Pakistan redirects to Indus Valley Civilization. Ancient India can refer to different times/places depending upon the context. "Ancient Pakistan" is no more accurate than "Ancient India". In my opinion, it's better to leave the sentence as: "The teeth, showing evidence of holes from dental drills, were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization." Any reader who wants more information about the Indus Valley Civilization can easily follow the link. Axl (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeh sure India and Pakistan are so totally different countries, but seriously the Indus valley civilisation is one of the forerunners of nearly all the major ethic and cultural groups of the Indian sub-continent, hence is often referred to as Ancient India.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Aristotle and the number of teeth in men and women[edit]

In "The History Of Animals," Aristotle wrote that men have more teeth than women. Does anyone know why he wrote that? I mean, are there any empirical, objective reasons behind such statement, besides Bertrand Russel's assumption that he never bothered to count them? Could it be that, in women, wisdom teeth did not erupt as frequently as in men? As anyone researched this matter? I think it would be interesting to find out more about it and, perhaps, to add some sourced info about it to the history section of this article. Thank you in advance. (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Odontology redirects here[edit]

But there's no explanation what so ever. Does anyone have the knowledge to add an explanation? Contributions/ (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sorry if my English is not so good. I think the interwikis in this article are not good. Odontology and dentistry are not the synonyms. But now we have [[no:Odontologi]] [[pt:Odontologia]] etc. In Serbian and Croatian, dentisty is called Stomatologija (cyrillic: Стоматологија). But some bot removed [[hr:Stomatologija]] and [[sr:Стоматологија]] and at the moment these interwikis are in the article Stomatology. Stomatology is called Zubarstvo (cyrillic: Зубарство) in Serbian. Many people confuse these terms. Can someone fix this? Or that I do? --M!cki talk 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micki (talkcontribs)
They appear to be regarded synonymously by many sources, and I noted that in the article. Feel free to add any differences. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Your reference did not say that "many sources" regard them as synonymous. Instead, your reference indicated that ontology is a branch of science whereas dentistry is a branch of medicine. Yes, ontology and dentistry are related, but they are not "highly similar." The relation is the same as that between zoology and veterinary medicine, or neuroscience and brain surgery. Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of personal in different countries[edit]

This data set give the above [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Dentist and Assistant[edit]

I gave a talk to the faculty of a dental school today about Wikipedia and one of the things they commented on was that the picture was not reflective of current best practices in that the assistant is not wearing gloves, neither are wearing face masks, and the computer keyboard is not shielded. Perhaps we could find another photo?--Reagle (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

addition: free photo Bulwersator (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To do[edit]

  • fix redirects
  • rewrite surgery and treatments section to be about treatmentsas opposed to about what dentists are can and cannot do. Perhaps eventually have sections on treatments? Eg. reasons behind treatment, summary of variations in technique, outdated treatments?
  • better images - best practice shown?
  • summary of current research?

etc... Probablysomeoneelse (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Graham87 02:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Right. Read around redirects a bit. I get it now (I think). I'v already done this in a couple of places, do I need to undo them or is it just a "don't do that again" type thing?Probablysomeoneelse (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Just don't do it again. Reverting the edits that you've already made to fix redirects just wastes even more server space. Graham87 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dental specialties[edit]

Hi. I think that Dental specialties should be redirected to Specialty (dentistry) instead of Specialties section of this article. --Fisty234 (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Redirect to find out how to deal with redirects. Graham87 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Tnks! I should take a day off for learning the principals of Wiki's ReDirection...--Fisty234 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Either remove Destist Chair redirect or give me some info about it[edit]

I landed on this page while looking for information about dentist chairs (when the first chair invented specifically for use in a dentistry setting was invented, the different models and capabilities of both modern and historical dentist chairs etc), and yet the only mention of dentist chairs in this page are in the labels for pictures. Please either remove the redirect and clearly show that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about dentist chairs, or add info about them to this article. --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody tried to write a tiny article about this topic but it was naturally nominated for deletion. The result of the sparse debate was to create the redirect. It's history really shouldn't be deleted, but at the same time, the previous article about this topic was worse than useless. However I think it'd be quite possible to create a decent article about dentist's chairs. Graham87 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, The removal of tang dynasty info and insertion of earlier text was an error, (I was using an earlier version) and I can add sources on Fauchard - information on Hunter is already sourced.Noodleki (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Could you make your changes again, with sources where possible, based on the current version of the article? Graham87 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds much better now. Thanks again! Graham87 01:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dentist[edit]

See: Talk:Dental_surgery#Merge_to_dentistry Lesion 21:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dental surgery[edit]

See: Talk:Dental_surgery#Merge_to_dentistry Lesion 21:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian surgery[edit]

"Prehistoric dental surgical techniques are seen in Ancient Egypt, where a mandible dated to approximately 2650 BCE shows two perforations just below the root of the first molar, indicating the draining of an abscessed tooth."

Blomstedt (2013) explains that the perforations are "more easily explained as sinuses for spontaneous drainage." He says his view "seems to have been widely accepted today in more serious publications," and that "the suggested examples of cortical trephination for evacuation of apical abscesses seem to have few serious proponents today." Accordingly, I have removed this statement from the lead. We could describe it with appropriate qualifications in the history section. KateWishing (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dentistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dentistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sumerian date is inaccurate[edit]

The text claims that a Sumerian text from 5,000 BC describes dental carries, but there are no Sumerian texts from 5,000 BC. The oldest Sumerian proto-writing is from the 3000s BC and it doesn't really pick up as a literary language until the 2000s (see for example Kramer, the Sumerians...or any relevant Wikipedia page). The source of this 5000 BC claim is an archive of a dental association website that just states the fact with no source. One potential source for this date is the paper "THE BEGINNINGS OF DENTAL CARIES AND ITS TREATMENTS" by J. Forrai, which presents the poem and cites the canonical "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament" by Pritchard. Looking up the poem in this text (on page 100 on the scribd version), it states that the poem dates to Neo-Babylonian times (~600s BC), but is likely a recreation of an older text. It DOES NOT say 5000 BC anywhere.

It's possible that the 5000 BC date (which is clearly wrong) is based on the mistaken chronology of the original 1903 translation from Akkadian (this is speculation on my part), or that Forrai somehow added an extra zero to 500 BC. Nevertheless, it's incorrect and should be fixed because it's causing citogenesis. Should I just go ahead and remove it? 2601:184:4202:A46:86E:2A5:E8DA:814E (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! I've gone and removed it and replaced the date with "ancient". I also fixed the citation while I was there. Graham87 07:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)