Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dentistry/Archive 1

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

Contents

Dental amalgam controversy

Any dentists or toothy-interested persons might want to have a look at dental amalgam controversy and it's talk page. I'm having a discussion with User:Dr. Imbeau that might be of interest (Talk:Dental amalgam controversy#Critics). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

'Palmer notation' vs 'Palmer notation method'

User:Dozenist asked if I could help out by checking if any of his list of dental stubs had a cross-over into wider medical practice - most of terms I had never heard of. However I did learn that the system I had always seen in UK used by GPs, ENTs and Dentists in communicating between themselves not only was not the only system, but that it had a name. Unfortunately Palmer notation article did not yet exist, so having done some research, I created it. Then checking the "what links here", it became apparent that wikipedia articles use two attempts to link to this topic: the various teeth articles use Palmer notation whilst the various numbering-method articles use Palmer Notation Method. Before I adjust Palmer Notation Method links to Palmer notation, could a dentist please advise which is the more correct of the two terms (PS 'Palmer Notation Method' breaches wikipedia article naming as it would need to be 'Palmer notation method') :-) Yours David Ruben Talk 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My morphology textbook, which is called Wheeler's Dental Anatomy, Physiology, and Occlusion, uses the term "Palmer notation system." It also says it is referred to "less commonly as the Zsigmondy/Palmer notation system." - Dozenist talk 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I note the other relevant articles are named Dental notation and FDI World Dental Federation notation, neither of which qualify their topic's title as being a "system" David Ruben Talk 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, hmmm. I just was not sure if we should name the article according to a source like a textbook. If I can find the system mentioned in another textbook, I will post it here. - Dozenist talk 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut

I note the wikiproject announces its shortcut as being WP:DENT, which probably explains why I struggled to find the thing. Any objection to having alternative/additional shortcut of WP:DENTISTRY ? :-) David Ruben Talk 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The shortcut sounds like a great idea! - Dozenist talk 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem assessing articles

I assessed some articles, and they still are listed as unassessed (as well as what I assessed them). Anyone know what the problem could be? RobJ1981 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Periodontitis vs Periodontal disease

Interesting discussing about terminology on Talk:Periodontal disease.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Front Page

Pulpectomy. Wow. I didn't know anybody else was interested in dentistry.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Neat. I like the illustration. Did you write that article, Dozenist? I couldn't determine who the primary author was from the history. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the icons in your wiki project page, but clicking on them takes you to the information about the png picture. is there a way of making the icons clickable links?Bouncingmolar 11:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Which article were ya'll referring to? - Dozenist talk 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No idea. Root canal, maybe? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant FTC

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Teeth, fyi. Honest assessments requested. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interdental plate

Interdental plate has been created & needs expanding. Hopefully you guys will be able to spruce it up. Just so you know. It needs assessing too... Thanks, Spawn Man 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lentulo spiral

Please post on the Talk:Lentulo spiral page to protect it from speedy deletion. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dental Wikipedians

I was wondering what you guys thought of trying to recruit more dentists into this project. Rather than making a new template and have to insert it everywhere, do you think it's a good idea to alter the existing Wikiproject Dentistry template to say something line "Join us if you want to help out"...this way we can have more than just a handful of people on this. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything we can do to recruite more dentists, the better. Are you talking about the article rating template? - Dozenist talk 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tooth article name

In case anyone is interested, there is a conversation about what to do with the information in the tooth article, as most of it refers to the human teeth. Should the content be moved out to an article called, human teeth (or some variant of that), or should there be a new article called, teeth in animals (or some variant of that). The discussion is taking place here. - Dozenist talk 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there's not a naming convention or Manual of Style guideline out there somewhere that addresses this type of issue. If there's not, this needs to be discussed at one of those talk pages so that a community consensus can be reached on this issue, as this type of thing would affect quite a few articles, methinks. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe so far this issue has not been addressed, but if so that would make things easier. - Dozenist talk 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Enamel lamellae

This article was recently deleted, restored, and blanked due to copyvio. The information there currently is but an approximation gleaned from basic sources. Could someone please fix it up a bit? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sugar free gum promotion by Wrigley's

Hi. I was hoping for a little help with a conflict of interest case. It appears Wrigley's gum are making edits to a number of dentistry and related articles to promote the use of sugar free gum. Example edits [1], [2] - see the COI report for more detail. I have no expertise in this area at all, and some of the information that is being posted may be good and useful, but it really needs some independent expert editors who can provide neutral sources and wording that gives appropriate weight to the assertions to ensure we don't end up with skewed articles. I'm not sure on the best method for doing this, but am happy to do some of the grunt work, monitoring pages and copying and pasting consensus statements where appropriate. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed one of the edits at dental caries, I believe, and reverted it a couple days ago. Dozenist, who likely has more dental articles watchlisted than anyone, would be the best person to ask about any other COI accounts or incidents regarding the gum. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe I noticed the addition somewhere else and removed it as well. Agreed, that there is a huge conflict of interest, and any sources used should be from a neutral source. - Dozenist talk 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for responding. What is the current opinion on sugar free gum and teeth health? Is it up there with brushing and flossing? Are there some good sources we could use? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No it is not "up there with brushing and flossing". Sure, there may be some benefit, especially with those people who have dry mouth and can stimulate saliva with chewing gum, but no you do not immediately jump from toothbrush to dental floss to chewing gum. - Dozenist talk 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to know I haven't been destroying useful information! -- Siobhan Hansa 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Periodontology vs Periodontics

I just noticed the articles Periodontology and Periodontics. They both are obviously about the same topic, so we need to merge them into one article. Which way should we determine the proper name? I believe "periodontology" may be the more proper term. - Dozenist talk 12:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles were merged. - Dozenist talk 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising about gum

Any here who are interested, the editor, Ellielancaster has been inserting information on almost all relevant articles about chewing gum. Many of the edits appear to be on the fringe of acceptibility because clearly this user is associated with a company or has some motivation to promote this topic. Though there is some benefit to chewing gum, it is still not on par with brushing and flossing. The edits appear to inflate the importance of chewing gum. Examples of edits include this, this, that, that, and that (list is just a few examples). We may want to keep an eye on any articles related to saliva, oral hygiene, dental caries, xerostomia, etc. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that Ideaslondon may be a similar (or same) user. - Dozenist talk 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ideaslondon just confirmed on my talk page that he/she is alternate account of Ellielancaster, and he/she is editing in the same manner. While their edits yesterday and today have been sourced, according to Dozenist's implied objection, the relevant polices weighing against inclusion of the material appear to include WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:UNDUE. There might also be a conflict of interest for the user. I suggest it might be best to tell the user to include their information in the "gum" article or something similar, as it doesn't necessarily cause an undue weight problem there, whereas including it in oral hygiene or dental caries does. What do you think? · jersyko talk 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion sounds like a better idea to me, though it would be good to impress on the user the danger of editing with a conflict of interest. Even with only editing on chewing gum articles, Ellielancaster has been warned previously about the user's Promotion of Wrigley's Gum. - Dozenist talk 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I warned the sock about puppetry and then posted this message on Ellielancaster's talk page (all while I'm supposed to be working! good thing I finished that appeal yesterday . . .). If anyone has any more to say or if I've misrepresented the views of the members of this project, please let me know. · jersyko talk 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Her response here. I might be misreading or misinterpreting, but this sounds somewhat like the "think tank" Exxon set up to "study" global warming. In other words, I don't think she has said anything to dissuade us from claiming a COI, and might have even confirmed that one exists. Again, assuming I haven't misread or misinterpreted; I think I need more eyes (or at least more dentally-inclined ones) on this. · jersyko talk 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that is not helping me to be convinced. What I end up reading is, "It is important people know this so they can chew sugar free gum and protect their teeth during the day when they do not have time to brush." ...and thus, buy *our* product to help *your* teeth! So, I think the very basic problem is that the user is approaching Wikipedia with the aim of putting a specific message (which so happens to further the goal her company is working towards) across several articles. Yes, chewing gum can help reduce the risk of cavities by increasing saliva production (really more relevant to people with dry mouth), but this user's questionable motives keeps me from finding a useful location for this information within dental articles. - Dozenist talk 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This is about as obvious a conflict of interest as you can get. From the users own words it's clearly a case of paid editing to promote a particular point of view, on top of which that view point has a clear commercial benefit to the funder of the project. It also seems telling that despite requests, the editor has entirely failed to engage in any discussion about the merits of the claims she is attempting to make, and his simply stepped back the claims a little each time a set of edits has been thoroughly reverted. This isn't a good way for us to develop articles as it leads to a knee-jerk mentality against the point of view the editor is trying to push rather than an appropriately articulated statement that reflects the current understanding of experts in the field. I think a good solution would be to ask Ellielancaster to edit only on the talk pages of articles and to work with other editors to develop appropriate content. Editors without such clear COI and POV editing history should ultimately decide if and how to add the content to the articles. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dozenist

As of today, Dozenist has now moved from the ranks of "Student Doctor" to "Doctor". Three cheers! · jersyko talk 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Much appreciated. - Dozenist talk 23:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations doctor. Have a nice break before you start working. Believe me, it's worth it. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 10:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

cermet fillings

I live in India. Last week, I went for my dental checkup. In one of my tooth, they removed the coposite filling so as to restore it. However, they were out of composite material, and i refused the amalgam. So they filled the cavity by using some new material. They called it cermet. I cannot find much information about cermet tooth fillings on wikipedia. Can any project member give me the details of the material used. It was whiter in colour compared to composite material. Thanks.--nids(♂) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Dentistry

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement - Dental porcelain

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:DSCN0126.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I read your article about PROGNATHISM and I have this characteristic... that is for me and I guess that the orientation you give to it is like a disease... which is not because many people in the world (not white) are like this... so I guess you failed in your point of view... I would ask you to give more information about this instead of treating it like a disease. I am from South America and I know many asians are like this , so maybe you should present statistics instead of classify characteristics in a non professional/non scientific manner. --Uyuni7 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation nominated as Good Article

I have nominated Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a Good Article. Suggestions for further improvements are welcome. If you have the time and the inclination to review it, please follow the reviewers' instructions at the top of Talk:Water fluoridation. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation nominated as Featured Article

Following up on the previous section: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated as a featured article. If you have the time and the inclination to review it, please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation featured-article restart

The Featured Article nomination of Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been restarted. Previous comments have been archived, so we now have a fresh start. Further comments are welcome on the nomination page. Eubulides (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First woman dentist

Who was the first female dentist?--85.226.44.201 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help creating a few stubs

I have a list of conditions affecting the mucous membranes, and wanted to know if someone would be interested in helping me makes stubs of them? --kilbad (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles about dentistry

From User:Skysmith/Missing_topics_about_Medicine:

Please feel free to create redirects or new articles as needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation renominated as Featured Article

After many edits, Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been renominated as a Featured Article. Please feel free to leave comments; instructions for commenters can be found at WP:FAC. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa Ülgen article

A new WP editor has recently created a page about the Turkish dentist Mustafa Ülgen. This article has a number of issues, which have led to its being nominated for deletion:

  • style inappropriate for a biographical article
  • questions regarding the notability of the subject matter
  • the creator is the related to the dentist, so there is a conflict of interest
  • there are no references at present

I am posting here so that someone with relevant expertise might take a look. Confirmation of notability, or any improvements which could be made to the article, would be enormously helpful. A.C. Norman (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of Knocked Out (Avulsed) Teeth

There is an article at Treatment of Knocked Out (Avulsed) Teeth that I nominated for a proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed by another editor, with the note that the article was too fleshed out to be deleted via that process. Upon closer inspection, I agree; the article is definitely not original research, but may contain some synthesis and problems related to the concept of "Wikipedia is not a how-to" that could use some extra eyes. Long story short, this looks like it could be salvaged and moved to a title such as Tooth avulsion. Other input and edits are welcome. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Main page might need watching October 12

Water fluoridation is currently on the Main Page. It's a controversial topic and if you could watch it for the usual sort of vandalism in the next 24 hours, it'd be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Carbamide peroxide needs cites

The lead paragraph of Carbamide peroxide contains some information on the safety/danger of carbamide peroxide at various concentrations which seems not to be cited. Can anybody take a look to see whether this is accurate, and if possible add cites? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine

For those interested in the Temporomandibular joint disorder article, you may wish to contribute to a discussion here. --NickContact/Contribs 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dental caries GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Dental caries for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article and help it maintain its GA status. Please comment there to help resolve the raised issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dental implant vs Implantology

Implantology seems to somewhat duplicate Dental implant, but afaics not in every regard. Having both articles out there could be a bit confusing, so could any of the experts around here take a look at those and see if they can be combined in a reasonable way? Thanks. noisy jinx huh? 10:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Maxillary central incisor

This article has just undergone a reassessment as part of the GA:SWEEPS. The review found several outstanding issues that need to be addressed if the article is to retain its GA ratings. The reassessment can be viewed here. If the problems identified are not addressed within the next 7 days, the article will be deslited. If there are any questions or queries, please contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 06:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Image of severe dental fluorosis

A new image File:Severe fluorosis.JPG has been added to Dental fluorosis by an editor who writes that the image shows a case that was "due to medical overexposure to fluoride as a child to succesfully prevent dental caries". Can someone who knows dentistry please double-check this image to make sure that it's a good illustration of severe dental fluorosis? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not dispute that this is likely fluorosis, caused by pathologic concentrations of fluoride. However, the statement regarding "medical overexposure" to prevent caries is unfounded and possibly (or even probably) inaccurate. Adamlankford (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tooth enamel at FAR

I have nominated Tooth enamel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Dentistry articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Dentistry articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Endodontic therapy

Can someone reevaluate this article; it's listed as stub class, but it looks like a c+/b- to me. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Holistic dentistry

I started this article after working on Focal infection theory and Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, two articles that are interconnected with the alternative dental movement. But there was no article for alternative dentistry itself. The current version is very much just a stub, and not a well-sourced one (yet), but there are tens on decent academic sources which cover the growth of the movement from the early 70's through today, much of it behind journal paywalls. I would appreciate some help or eyes, or a drive-by project rating, since your project header is now up. Cheers, Ocaasi c 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Tooth development for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories

  • Not sure if this project is active but I wanted to create a new category for dental instruments, cements, impression materials. Maybe we could call it dental materials? Please provide your input.Gsingh (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT article

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dental College

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Dental College. -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tooth histology anyone?

Tooth surrounded by bone in a teratoma. H&E stain.

Can someone help me label a picture I took of a tooth in a teratoma?
Thanks, Nephron  T|C 00:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Resembles cap or bell stage of odontogenesis, I am not confident to say. The internal structure could be called the dental papilla, and the encapsulating area superioriorly could be called the enamel organ. Unsure of the exact stage of differentiation of the cells, or even if dentiogenesis/amelogenesis has begun (I don't think it has, in which case the darkly staining cells separating the papilla from the enamel organ would be odontoblasts/pre-odontoblasts). Sorry I can't be of more help... Lesion (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
My histology is a little out of date but here's a start....."A soft and hard tissue H&E section, at low power, showing a developing tooth in Bell stage surrounded by immature woven bone matrix, with non-lamellar distribution of osteocysts and occasional fatty tissue" If a pathologist looks at this and laughs, I apologize. Ian Furst (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

List of cysts of the jaws

Hey everyone. New to WP:DENT, oral surgeon in Ontario, Canada looking to help edit. Cleaned up the article above. Can someone take a look and let me know if it's on the right track? Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I feel that this page should be called "Cysts of the jaws" rather than "list of...". List articles tend to have nothing but the list. This article now has more than a simple list... Lesion (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
agree Ian Furst (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested for proposed changes to Template:oral pathology

I feel the above template is very inadequate. We also have these templates: Template:Acquired tooth disease which has a problem of scope compared to the more restricted Template:Developmental tooth disease. I have restructured the oral pathology template to include the major areas of oral lesions. I am thinking whether this should be oromaxillofacial or just oral pathology... Here is my proposed new template: User:Lesion/sandbox#Tweaking oral pathology template (work in progress). Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pathology is neither my strong suit nor my favorite dental topic. Proceed as you think most befits the project, and you'll likely get no great resistance if you see any at all. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your template is better and have large scope. I would like to suggest to keep it Oral pathology template. Including OMF would make it even more complex, make different temp for it for easy navigation. Proceed as you think, easiest to navigate and understand.--Nizil (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your template is better than what was there. I'm partial to the book by Neville and Damm and they break down chapters by disorder rather than anatomic structure. For instance, a fibroma could occur all of the place (gingiva, lip, tongue, pharynx). Leaving aside the aquired and developmental disorders of teeth (I'd also suggest periodontal disease be a seperate template) what do you think of a template by pathology.... Infectious (baterial, fungal, viral), Allergic/Immunologic, Epithelial pathology, salivary gland pathology, soft tissue tumors, bone pathology, odontogenic cysts and tumors, physical and chemical injuries? Other considerations would include oral manifestations of systemic dieases including dermatologic disorders. Ian Furst (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I just looked at the contents for this book, I do like that layout, and would happy to copy this. The issue copying it would raise is do we want an oral pathology template, or a oromaxillofacial pathology template? I don't know what is best way forwards. Following Neville et al would lead to an oromaxillofacial pathoses list, or even head and neck pathology, since there is inclusion of some conditions more usually associated with ENT...If it becomes more than just oral pathology, I think the title of the template could do with changing. We already got a separate templates for perio, sort of, and other things that I found...there are probably more. I think that all oral pathology should be included in a main template, inc periodontal disease, then there can be these other more specific pathology templates. Lesion (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
agree, the neck pathology thing is troublesome. Do we include thyroglossal duct cyst that extends up (yes) but thyroid malignancy (no) or parathyroid disorders (no). Personally, my cut off would be in answer to the question "what might a dentist reasonably find on exam". Branchial cleft cyst (yes), metastatic lymph node disease (yes). Anyway - let me know if you want me to do/look at anything. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback everyone, I will work on a new version of the template some more I think.Lesion (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Found this adjunct to the ICD-10: Application of the International Classification of Diseases to Dentistry and Stomatology maybe would be more appropriate to follow this than a single oral path textbook? Lesion (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a better text to follow, but from 1995 a lot will be reclassified. It will be painful to try and figure out what's changed. Let me email an Oral Pathologist friends and see what the latest is. Will post here as soon as he responds? Ian Furst (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Lesion|Lesion]] (talk, I never use the ICD so I'm a bit of a rookie here - have you seen this link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 19:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I never really knew anything about the ICD before wikipedia... the link I posted I think is basically all the oral pathology related codes taken from this main ICD list. I think the old templates were based on ICD-9, but not sure... Lesion (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
My oral pathology contact didn't have any further info - the link I sent is an update (2010) version of what you found (and electronic v. PDF). Take a look. Ian Furst (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Stafne defect

Had a pt come in with one today so I reworked the article and uploaded the pan and CT images to the article. Can someone proof-read for me if you have time? Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great...people willing to upload medical images are some of the most valuable contributions to these projects imo. Yes I'll have a look at the article... Lesion (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge panoramic radiograph with Orthopantomogram ?

See Talk:Orthopantomogram. Unless I am missing something, these are the same view... Lesion (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Email a radiology prof but no response - there all the same I think. My belief is that panoramic radiograph is the current term, panorex is a trade name (older but frequently used) and orthopantomogram is an outdated term that few use, or maybe they use in the UK. Not sure. Ian Furst (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've worked in the UK, they use "OPG", "OPT" or just say panoramic. Pretty sure we should have only one article, and if some of the terms are trade names, we should just list them in the main article rather than having several articles... Lesion (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should use panoramic radiograph with orthopantomogram, panorex, OPG, OPT redirecting to the main article, OPG is a more common term in commonwealth countries. I've heard panorex commonly in Canada and I'm assuming its common there due to the US. Gsingh (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
you are probably correct...is panoramic radiography the technique, and the rest names of the view or trade names? Lesion (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
panorex is the common term in NA, but I'm pretty sure it's just good marketing (think Kleenex). The best way to think about it, is that panoramic radiography is a specific application of tomography where the the mandible and maxilla are in the focal trough. A panoramic radiograph is produced. Just read the articles; neither one is very detailed. I'll put together a high quality pan and label it. Ian Furst (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Ian, I think that would be a good way to start the article. Agree with Gsingh that main article should be Panoramic radiograph, (or "dental panoramic radiograph" ?) with all other terms being explained within. Currently, the Panoramic radiograph article is strange. It is mostly about screening for carotid atherosclerosis. A lot of refs written by a one Dr Friedlander... Suggest a lot of this content can be reworked when articles are merged... Lesion (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
agree; i'll watch it too and start editing after the merge; or before. let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have begun reworking the merged article. Issues existing/created by merge I have listed on the talk page. re uploading an anotated panoramic, see [3] ... might be able to convert one of these into a labeled one if that is easier... Lesion (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
While we are talking about this page, I thought it might be sensible to merge oral and maxillofacial radiology with dental radiography. Where I am at least, the same specialty does both...although "dental radiography" might refer to the technique or taking xrays, rather than interpreting the images... Lesion (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
agree - btw, got word back from my prof friend Panorex a trade name from SS White and Orthopantomograph is a trade name from Siemens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 15:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I added TM to those two names in the lead, thanks. re. this other move I will wait for more comments as I am not 100% sure this is the best thing to do. Lesion (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you need to add the TM to the trademarked names, I haven't seen it on WP yet. What's you opinion on the detection of carotid atherosclerosis sectopm? Don't you feel that its taking too large of a part in the article? In Canada dentists will rarely/never take a panoramic radiograph for the sole purpose of detecting an atherosclerotic plaque. It may be of more use in Atherosclerosis article if anything. Gsingh (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Hi Gsing, yes I agree with your concerns. It looks like detection of atheroscelosis off panoramics has received some research interest, but it has never caught on. I agree with you that in modern clinical practise this is never carried out. As I describe on Talk:Panoramic radiograph#Issues following merge, I am concerned over WP:UNDUE and maybe even WP:COI since most of the sources (primary sources I might add) are by a Dr Friedlander... Certainly the rest of this article could do with much expansion, and then maybe there would not be such undue weight, but I would still say reduce it to one section supported by secondary sources. Moving the content to atherosclerosis is an interesting suggestion too. Lesion (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on talk:atherosclerosis requesting imput. Lesion (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw

If the group is still looking for a collaborative topic, I thought this might be a good idea. It's probably the 'hottest' top article with the lowest rating. The biggest issue, I think, is that we now believe its drug-related osteonecrosis incl bisphos but also anti-RANKL and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. It's a lot of research to cover though so collaboration could be good.Ian Furst (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Much work needed here. This looks like a sub-article of osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is more developed. A while ago I created an osteoradionecrosis stub. I am thinking now maybe the latter would be best to merged to osteonecrosis... Lesion (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree - never saw osteonecrosis of the jaw. I would vote to merge all three into osteonecrosis of the jaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
hmmm...agree that osteoradionecrosis and bisphosphonate induced osteonecrosis appear to be specific types of osteonecrosis. Could be argued to merge everything there. However, situation is further complicated by the fact that this rarely occurs outside the jaws...we also have this page avascular necrosis which lists osteonecrosis as a synonym. Unsure of best way forwards. Lesion (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave the avascular necrosis as a specific entity. AVN of the femoral head is relatively common in kids, it can occur in other bones to. I've seen it in the head of the condyle too. The better term to merge it all under might be "osteonecrosis of the jaws" since infection, blood supply, XRT, etc.. can all effect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 16:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mandibular fracture

Can we add this article to the group? It needs a lot of work and is rated as mid-level stub by WP:MEDIan Furst (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Weirdness - Mandible fracture redirects to facial trauma. Mandibular fracture is a stubIan Furst (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed some of the redirects, made a disamib for other uses of "broken jaw", talk page now has WPDENT support. I have a textbook on facial trauma, I can expand this page a bit... Lesion (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions, don't forget to use inline citation and reliable sources, see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for more info. Any Qs, feel free to ask. (Btw, here is an article I just reworked and I thought it is a good example how medical content on wikipedia should be presented. Notice that although there is not inline citation for every sentence, when you look at wikimarkup, I sometimes used <!-- hidden references --> to make it clear exactly where statemennts are sourced from especially in sections which are vulnerable to conflict of interest edits like inserting a comercial product into the treatment section, and prevents future editors placing {{citation needed}} templates). Lesion (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
will do - this one will need a lot, so I was getting some of the info down then was going to add inline ref's. I won't move onto another section, until finding the references for the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
first draft of mandible fracture is complete; if someone has time can you give it a read? thx. Ian.Ian Furst (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The prognosis section might benefit from mention of the probable outcome of an unattended compromised airway... Lesion (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Merged what you had with what I had into the treatment section. I had a paragraph on loss of airway from genioglossus support to, hydrostatic effect from high velocity injury and potential for vascular injury. Took what you had (from Banks) and moved it up. Airway compromise is such an unlikely outcome from mand fx (long term), thought it better in the treatment consideration area rather than prognosis (which I thought should deal specifically with prognosis of the mand fx itself) Ian Furst (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that airway considerations are more immediate management issue than long term prognosis, however "prognosis" does not equate to "long term prognosis" unless specified. Also I would say that death is a pretty long term outcome. Agree v rare, but notable event to mention in the prognosis section. Probably only need one sentence. I will find a source soon. Lesion (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: image requested on Hairy leukoplakia

Just finished rewriting this for now...it could really do with an image if anyone comes across a good case...thanks, Lesion (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas?

Does anyone know what ICD classification epulis fissuratum might be? Closest thing on there seems to be fibrous epulis, [4]... but this I don't think is 100% the same... Lesion (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dental symphysis

Is "dental symphysis" the same as "mandibular symphysis" (symphysis menti)? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not heard that term before. Google search of "dental symphysis" yields only 161 hits (notability?). Appears to be used as an anatomic term in other animals, but not humans. I would stick with mandibular symphysis as the most commonly used term for the plain of fusion in the midline of the mandibule in humans, and then the latin as second choice. Lesion (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor aims to improve the "Koala" article and found the term in a reference. He asked me for a layman's interpretation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have invited WikiProject Veterinary medicine to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, though I do hang out at WP Vet, my guess is "mandibular symphysis" is what's indended. As always, though, citing a source usually settles such issues. Montanabw(talk) 16:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles about periapical lesions need attention

  • Unless I have not found it, we don't seem to have an article about periapical periodontitis/apical periodontitis/periradicular periodontitis. (periapical periodontitis yields the most pubmed hits). We do have a main periodontitis article, but from what I can see it does not discuss periapical periodontitis, it is about periodontal diseases. Unless I am mistaken, periapical periodontitis is not traditionally considered alongside periodontitis...Neville et al has a chapter entitled "pulpal and periapical disease".
  • We also have no article for periapical granuloma. I personally feel this is notable enough for its own article, failing that a redirect to an article about Periapical periodontitis.
  • We have an article about periapical cysts, with redirects from radicular cyst and dental cyst. It is a good size but needs more refs and has no inline citation.
  • We have an stub article about periapical abscess, but tooth abscess (with dental abscess and root abscess as redirects) seems to also be about the same thing, and this article is much better expanded. Suggest merge periapical abscess to the main tooth abscess page.
  • There is a well referenced article titled healing of periapical lesions, but it is orphaned. It is a specialized topic, normally articles like this are seen as nested articles for main parent article, e.g. this might be appropriatedly nested into root canal treatment.
  • Also, not a periapical lesion, but the necrotic pulp article is also stub and could do with significant work. Personally I would rename this pulpal necrosis. Lesion (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Reworked leukoplakia and pericoronitis articles

MEDRS expansion of both the above, opinions/constructive criticism welcome. Lesion (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested "Neuromuscular dentistry"

I am reworking temporomandibular joint dysfunction and I came across the above page. I think the page is fringe theory, and should be presented within the main TMD page with weight according to the weight given to it in reliable sources about TMD. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing tablets

Could someone please take a quick photo if you have any laying around? We need an image for the article. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam?

Several recent edits to Comparison of dental practice management software appear to be for the purposes of promotion.

I'm wondering if the entire page should be sent to AFD as "not encyclopedic."

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fay Bella Goldstep

Hello dental experts! The above article has been waiting in the Afc for more than two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been declined now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

{{DentPortalTalk}}

Template:DentPortalTalk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral and maxillofacial pathology and dental pathology, dental disease, tooth abnormality, etc.

There is a discussion regarding merging many of these articles into 1-3 main articles. Comments appreciated here: Talk:Oral and maxillofacial pathology#Proposed merges. (Cross-posted on WT:MED). Lesion (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pre-Eruption Guidance Treatment

Dear dentistry experts:

The above old abandoned Afc draft was never submitted, and now it's about to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To others; I've heard of the concept but not the term. I searched pubmed for pre-eruption guidance and can't find a single entry. Given that the article is in serious need of clean-up and would be difficult to properly reference, I don't think it's worth saving. Do we have someone with an ortho background that might offer a more informed opinion? 15:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article is referring to serial extraction (minus the extraction of permanent teeth), I don't believe it is notable enough to be included as an article on its own. Gsingh (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New (or returned) dental editor

@Bouncingmolar:

There is a dental editor working on Pericoronitis currently. I am sure anyone who is around will join me in welcoming them to WPDENT, or rather welcoming them back since it appears that they have previous experience editing dental articles in the past. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

heh thanks lesion, that is unnecessary. You're right I do have quite a sporadic editing history. Bouncingmolar (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mineral trioxide aggregate

If anyone has the time or energy, the article on MTA appears to be heavily influence by industry sources and in desperate need of WP:NPOV changes. Will monitor but won't have time to make any changes in the near future. Ian Furst (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Article Name???

From a note at OTRS 2014010410006922 - poster said that Radioactive dentin abrasion should be called Relative dentin abrasion as per the text of the article. I looked at the history, and it seems that the article did start out correctly and the edit of 00:24, 15 October 2008‎ seems to have changed the whole page somewhat. I'm not sure what has gone on here - should there be two pages, one as it is now called Relative dentin abrasion and one called Radioactive dentin abrasion based on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_dentin_abrasion&oldid=190107874??? I may be a scientist, but it's not my field - so I'll leave it to the Project to decide on what to do.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: The terms are the same, and both are used according to this source: "The radiotracer method known as radioactive or relative dentin abrasivity (RDA) " [5]. So, the question is which term is more commonly used, so we can follow that term and have the other as a redirect. After a very brief search on PubMed, it looks to me like relative dentin abrasion is the more common term, but I stress that it was brief. Also, I wonder whether this topic would be better merged to tooth wear leaving redirects? Lesion (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
new term to me, but I found a detailed consensus conference [6] that includes a complete history. The terms radiotracer, radioactive and relative are all used interchangeably throughout the document and seem to be based on user preference. From what I can tell, ISO, FDA and BSI use radioactive but I'm having trouble finding it on their sites. In the mean time, would suggest a move to radioactive dentin tracer with redirects for radiotracer and relative. Ian Furst (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like radioactive might be the best way to go then. That or merge to tooth wear or toothpaste. Lesion (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────create redirects for radiotracer dentin abrasion and relative dentin abrasion to radioactive dentin abrasion. Can change if more information comes to light or decision is made to merge to tooth wear. Ian Furst (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisdom teeth

If there's no opposition, I'm going to try and take on the wisdom teeth article. I ask, because it's a contentious issue with significant geographic diversity in treatment recommendations. But it's in need of revision (imo) with better secondary sources added. My biggest question is on the title of the article itself (or maybe the scope is a better question). Really, this article deals with wisdom teeth impaction. Normal wisdom teeth are describe (like all other teeth) in the human teeth and/or the molar article. The analogy I'd use is the difference between the aorta article and the aortic dissection article. My plan would be to make the article about wisdom teeth impaction and follow the MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes template and include in the opening paragraph that the normal, healthy wisdom tooth is describe in the other articles. Thoughts? Ian Furst (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved discussion to article talk page Ian Furst (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge Dental barotrauma to dental trauma

Sounds to me like a very rare mechanism of dental trauma which could readily be discussed on dental trauma. Lesion (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

normally I'm all for a merge, but this one may be interesting to leave for a bit. Barotrauma in scubadivers and pilots is pretty well described (I think) and the pathophys is different enough from mechanical trauma. We just need to find the right person to edit. I dive, but don't know any divers with a specific interest in this. Might be worth a look online - see if we can recruit someone. Ian Furst (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Barotrauma or barodontalgia? Because they are separate articles currently. Merge to dental trauma and toothache respectively imo. Lesion (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even look for barodontalgia - nice catch. Personally, I'd merge the barotrauma to barodontalgia in that case. It's got a link to the diving portal, and should probably have one to the aviation portal as well. Even though it's only a start article, I still think it deserves a separate one, just because it's unique compared to classic toothache. Ian Furst (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Organization of oral and maxillofacial pathology topics

Here is my idea to organize this topic. Lesion (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Parent article:

Sub-articles:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WarLess Dental Procedure

Hello again; I have come across another old Afc submission that relates to dentistry. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept or be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst ... I think this is about implants. [7]. Lesion (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, Anne Delong...it is. Using a flapless technique to place implants on patients who take warfarin. Does not meet notability requirements as a separate article. Ian Furst (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will leave it as it is. If there is anything usable as a section in another article, material could be transferred and it could be made into a redirect to save the attribution; otherwise, it will be deleted soon. Thanks for taking time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Barbers and hairdressers

FYI Category:Barbers has been proposed to be merged to Category:Hairdressers and the equivalent fictional categories. As historically, barbers have been dentists, this may be of interest to you. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of dentistry in Greenbelt, Maryland

Dear dentistry experts: The above interesting article about dentistry in a planned community has not been improved after being declined as too promotional. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the write-up Anne, but the article seems less about dentistry in Greenbelt and more about a single practice/generational practice. My opinion is that it:
a) as an article on dentistry in Greenbelt it doesn't have a neutral point of view
b) As an article about the Drs. McCarl, it doesn't reach the threshold for notability at Wikipedia.

Thank you for the submission. Ian Furst (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that it has faded away now... —Anne Delong (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Periodontal examination

I have started a new particle called Periodontal examination. It seems that such techniques vary greatly around the world, so if anyone is interested to add a brief section about the most widely used one in their part of the world please feel free. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Denture adhesives

Do we have any content on this topic, or is it a redlink? Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on merging stubs

I'm proposing to merge 3-4 stubs on molar cusps: Protocone, Metacone, Hypocone, and (perhaps) Paracone (tooth). These 4 cusps are important in mammalian taxonomy and paleontology, but are defined primarily by their relative locations, so I think having a centralized coverage that briefly defines each will better serve readers. See discussion at Talk:Protocone.--Animalparty-- (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03

Is there anything salvageable from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IPG DentistEdu Technique? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN not imo. We've seen many like this where an individual (or group) comes up with a minor variation on a technique and believes it noteworthy. The main page for this is sinus lift but I wouldn't move anything from this RfC. Ian Furst (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Obscure, how-to-ish, jargon laden and terribly referenced (referenced to a journal rather than a specific article). Lesion (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Tooth staining

Another redlink? Lesion 11:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Class editing dental emergency

The class has been making steady progress on this article. Lesion 11:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 13/05

Draft:Tricho-Dento-Osseous Syndrome. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

COTW

{{CCWDcur}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Orthotropics®. Input?

Nominated for deletion: Orthotropics®. Input? Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faculty Dental Journal (FDJ)

Dear dentistry experts: This old abandoned AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong. There was good content here. I cleaned it a bit and moved it into main space. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD - Ultrasonic toothbrush

Ultrasonic toothbrush is up for deletion for a reason that appears lost in the language barrier. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates in need of cleanup

A number of templates relating to dentistry and related areas really need a look-at. This is part of a census of almost all medical-related templates. Please help contribute to cleaning up these templates. Please help make these templates readable for lay readers who will not know what many of the technical words derived from Greek or Latin will mean. The templates I have identified as needing cleanup are (please feel free to disagree with my assessment once you've had a look, and any changes made will surely be an improvement!):

  1. {{Symptoms involving head and neck}}. Poorly organised + missing symptoms. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) -- If/when this 3template gets a make over feel free to ping me and I will help out. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. {{Acquired tooth disease}} titles and structure need simplification for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. {{Dentofacial anomalies and jaw disease}} odd structure --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
     Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. {{Stomatological preparations}} title and contents could be reworded so that lay readers understand what they are about. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Templates about specialities could be standardised now that they are linked. Many also lack a "logical" structure (to me, anyway) which lacks a division between articles relating to what the speciality is (training, organisations, accreditation, etc.) and what it does (procedures, etc.) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    {{Endodontology}}
    {{Prosthodontology}}
    {{Dentistry}}
    {{Orthodontics}}
    {{Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery}}
    {{Periodontology}}
  6. {{Oral pathology}} is difficult to use to navigate because things are not divided other than by organ and symptoms are mixed with diseases. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping to Ian Furst and Matthew Ferguson 57, the only users of this wikiproject I believe to be active. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign

Hi. Is anyone here familiar with Invisalign? I have started a discussion here about the best way to summarize the medical literature in the Lead and could use an expert to verify what is a good short summary of how it's viewed by the medical community. Please note I have disclosed a conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on lead image for article on tooth decay

Please comment here KDS4444 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Aspen Dental article

Hi, I'm Stephanie and I'm here on behalf of my employer, Aspen Dental Management Inc. (ADMI). I've proposed some updates for the Aspen Dental Wikipedia article, which can be seen here. Specifically, I am looking to improve the existing "History" section with this request.

I will not be editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but I am hoping there is someone who will review my request. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. -Stephanie from ADMI (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stephanie from ADMI: Did anyone ever respond to this request? KDS4444 (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

WikiJournal of Medicine Poster (hyperlinked).pdf
WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

  • Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
  • Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

  1. ^ Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.
  3. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)