Talk:Periodontal disease

Horrible Article

This has poorly written parts. The "Causes" section, for instance says:

'The primary cause of gingivitis is poor or ineffective oral hygiene, which leads to the accumulation of a mycotic[26][27][28][29] and bacterial matrix at the gum line, called dental plaque.'

That's a key statement, given that gingivitis is a primary periodontal disease. There's actually no references for the statement regarding oral hygiene. References after 'mycotic' are really obscure - "a 64-year-old woman who developed endogenous endophthalmitis in the course of severe periodontitis", a 1936 article on a single patient, yeast diversity in oral microbiota of patients. Nothing to backup the logic of the statement.

Then there's the statement about diabetics. "New finger prick tests" are being used in dental offices to screen for diabetes? Finger prick tests are used by diabetics, not to identify them.

"In some people, gingivitis progresses to periodontitis" - no reference.

Now, when references are readily available, they're provided - just look at smoking and periodontitis. So it seems that lack of references, or poor ones, is a sign they don't exist.

There's a complete lack of referencing for Prevention. Brushing, flossing, and mouthwash are all said to be important, yet none are referenced.

The same thing is repeated in the section on Management. Although the statement "Persons with periodontitis must realize it is a chronic inflammatory disease and a lifelong regimen of excellent hygiene and professional maintenance care with a dentist/hygienist or periodontist is required to maintain affected teeth" truly is awful. This must be written by a dentist who needs clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

I'll see what I can do to restore the honor and glory of the periodontology-related articles. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Failure to Treat Periodontal Disease

The last paragraph on the links to cardiovascular disease could some references. JustAnotherKinase (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion?

@DRosenbach: Your opinion is kindly requested.

What is the scope of this article?

We also have periodontitis and chronic periodontitis, which it appears to be duplicating.

In my experience, periodontal disease is a by-word for chronic periodontitis, but I am no periodontist. Perhaps we should treat this article as either

1. a redirect to periodontitis, and merge the content there, or
2. a parent article for all periodontal pathology, in which case some content should be merged to periodontitis and details of other diseases added...

It might be worth noting that Periodontal Disease (with a capital D) already redirects to periodontitis... What are your thoughts on this matter? Lesion (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pinging me. There are numerous periodontal diseases, of which one form is periodontitis, but this is still not technically a diagnosis -- a more specific terminology like generalized moderate chronic periodontitis or localized aggressive periodontitis would be classified as diagnoses. I'll redirect the PD (capitalized) redirect to this one, but I think it's important to keep them separate, especially since the Page and Schroeder classifications listed in this article do span from early gingivitis into more advanced periodontitis, which would not be accounted for by the contents of an article specifically about periodontitis. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to respond here... my reading of your reply is that you think this page should be treated as the second option I listed... this is fine, I tend to agree with you. I have tried to apply some better organization to oral and maxillofacial pathology topics:

• Oral and maxillofacial pathology
  • Tooth pathology
  • Periodontal pathology -- a parent article for all disorders of the periodontium
  • Tongue disease
  • Salivary gland disease

... So this page is due some work. I thinks a surgical sieve layout is very beneficial for this kind of article. I will get around to starting this at some point. Lesion (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion with classification

I came to this page in a pure accident, after deletion an article of a nonnotable band: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyorrhoea (2nd nomination). And I see what looks like students' activity here.

Whoever is actively working on this article does not have a clear idea of both the purpose of Wikipedia and the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place of medical advice. An important part of the coverage of a subject is its history. History info will help people who may read texts written in various times and may get confused with conflicting information. Long story short, the "Classification" section must have the following:

• Subsection "Historical overview"
  • It must contain, in particular, 1989, 1999 and recent classification.
  • It must clearly state whether the recent update of 1999 is just a proposal or already accepted. If it is accepted, there must be a ref to the authority document, not just conference proceedings.
• Sections on peculiarities of each classification , i.,e changes compared to the previous one
• Section on the final classification currently in effect

Also new editors must pay close attention how the article text is formatted. And be careful with information is references. It the last edit the external link was broken and page title was wrong.

On a final note, please use talk page in the case of disagreements or misunderstanding. Ask questions, not just pump pieces of text only to be reverted. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

One does not need an excessive number of subheadings. A historical view of classification would go under a history section not a diagnosis section. The 1999 classification is still used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

1999 classification is still used precisely for this reason one needs to clearly distinguish from which classification a particular definition comes from. One has to be careful with medical terminology and definitions, which change over time. My favorite example is "hysteria". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

would go under a history section - there is no history section. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Since medical experts don't care, I made a compromise version based on mine and DJ's opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

True as the 1999 classification is still in use agree it should stay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is this for?

I know I am fighting a losing battle here, but as with all medical Pages, y'all are so sure about how you must be taken seriously as a "proper" encyclopedia, you write with no regard for who actually reads Wikipedia. Under Causes it says this: " Another factor that makes periodontitis a difficult disease to study is that human host response can also affect the alveolar bone resorption. Host response to the bacterial-mycotic insult is mainly determined by genetics; however, immune development may play some role in susceptibility." Who is going to understand that? Pretty much only people who probably ALREADY KNOW IT !! Maybe we need to make a new encyclopedia for ordinary people instead of smarty-pants's IceDragon64 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:IceDragon64 excellent point. We need more people to work on writing Wikipedia is common English.

Have trimmed that text as both unreferenced and overly complicated.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Risk factor versus cause

Have adjusted to "Factors that increase the risk of disease include smoking" Smoking and certain medications are more risks than causes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

This study was about mice not humans and their is no evidence for treatments slowing aging in humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Periodontal disease is an age-associated disorder, hence treatments that slow down ageing may be potential treatments for gum disease. For instance, the drug rapamycin slows aging and extends lifespan in multiple organisms, including mice. An et al. (2020) demonstrated that short-term treatment with rapamycin rejuvenates the aged oral cavity of elderly mice, including regeneration of periodontal bone, attenuation of gingival and periodontal bone inflammation, and a change of the oral microbiome toward a more "youthful" composition. While rapamycin is an FDA-approved drug, it has not been approved for the treatment of gum disease and its use for this purpose is still at an early stage of research."

References

Old ad for Pyorrhea treatment

Here's an old ad for treatment of Pyorrhea disease: Time Magazine, 1929.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clinical significance section

Currently focuses only on vitamin deficiencies, which are not going to be relevant to all cases, and which are not the sole clinical significance of this condition.

I recommend cutting the vitamin deficiency content down to a paragraph or two in a subsection, and adding other subsections. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion of Statement

The statement "Males are affected more often than females,[5]" needs revised. The statement could be more regional specific and dependent on patient care bias. I found an article "Provision of treatment for periodontitis in Norway in 2013 – a national profile." In methods, it states using Norway Surveys for their data, and the results conclude " More females (55%) than males (45%) were treated with predominance in the 60–69 year age group." The statement "Males are affected more often than females,[5]" needs to be expanded or cut. pirwitzb1