Talk:Early childhood caries

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Dentistry Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am a physician and the references to Xylitol are blatant product placement and certainly out of place here. This is rarely used and may deserve a mention, but the last paragraph is clearly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.46.175 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10/09/07 - Vital Health Knowledge is being hidden from the public as the tooth decay theory police come by and delete valid links to published medical resources for parents. All information should be available for parents. You cannot keep deleting valid and truthful informational resources, unless you want to try to control people rather than give them a free choice! - yourreturn

Numerous references to a product called 'Spiffies Baby Tooth Wipes' ; Have removed these, as quite blatent product placements. For that matter, not sure how much the page itself is worth... seems to be fairly pointless. Seydlitz 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's vastly different since the dispute tag was added. And, since there's zero discussion on the talk page about the dispute tag, it seems pointless to have it there. I'm taking it off. If anyone wants to put it back on, post on the talk page to explain exactly what's in dispute. adavidw 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cleaned up the layout a little, so I removed the "cleanup" tag. Again, if you want to put it back, don't do it without explaining here what needs cleanup next. Oh, and the links that were on the page didn't really have anything to do with teeth - iust hippy whole health type sites.adavidw 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I dispute this. This article only presents half the truth. Early Childhood Caries is both Curable and Preventable. The current theory is false, bacteria's do not cause tooth decay in children. Your false information amounts to lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.245.179 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2007

Hi,

I put links to legimitate sources of medical journals and scientific journals and people keep removing them. Stop it.

Links restored, and more neutral content added

yourreturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.183.225 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you provide will be removed. The statements, such as "Micro-organisms do not cause tooth decay! Do not use xylitol it is harmful!", are untrue and against widely accepted science. In case you are wondering, this is not a method to remove "New Theories", but to prevent what is regarded as junk science from being presented as widely accepted in the scientific community. - Dozenist talk 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dozenist - You keep removing valid links, and sure, you can remove one sentence, but you are also removing references to valid external links, and to dental journals. - yourreturn You are also promoting a theory of tooth decay that is not scientifically valid, and fails even the basic checks. Thus an alternative theory must be displayed.

The idea that bacteria cause tooth decay is widely accepted by science. As much as you say that the theory "is not scientifically valid", there sure are a lot of scientists and medical professionals that believe the theory is true. I removed your edits and the associated links again because the article must reflect what is believed by the vast majority of science. In particular, this text from WP:UNDUE should help: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." - Dozenist talk 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more with Dozenist. The links I went to contained information that could not even be considered pseudoscience. Absolute unsubstantiated garbage displaying a lack of understanding of even the basics of tooth development and anatomy. There were no links to an evidence base and even the anecdotal evidence was poorly analysed showing a complete, total and utter lack of any knowledge of teeth whatsoever. A first year science student could point out the flaws in this rubbish. How can you disagree with current theories if you have no knowledge of the problem you are dealing with?Dr-G - Illegitimi non carborundum est. 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is very thorough and explains some key points about the risks of giving a child a bottle of milk before bed. A few recommendations would be to explain the term demineralisation, as this is a key term of the process of dental caries. References are good, but we will need to order the numbers when the other sections are completed. Do you think a picture is needed in this section? Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapir Tossia (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey team, section under Aetiology still needs correct in-text referencing and ordering of numbers. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapir Tossia (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sapir, thanks for adding more information and quality references

Hey guys. I have made a new introduction to the ECC page, I think it's an improvement. I've also fixed the referencing up and added a few extras here and there. I'm going to throw a few pictures in of ECC too. If you guys see anything wrong with what I've done, go ahead and fix it or write it down here so I can fix it. Good job on improving this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deang95 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I'm not allowed to put up pictures of ECC from the internet on this page, needs to be my own or I need permission to put it on. Anyone got any ideas about images that will actually be allowed to be put on?

I believe google has a search parameter which lets you filter by image license.

Could try search on Wikimedia commons [1]

Failing all this, if you see someone clinically or otherwise you can get them to fill out a consent form (e.g. see [2]) and take the picture yourself, then upload it to commons / Wikipedia. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matthew for your help, I was unaware about the filter on Google images. I'll definitely give it a look, appreciate the help mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deang95 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deang95 for editing the introduction. I would recommend adding some statistical information for put this issue into perspective? Perhaps, how frequently children visit for treatment due to pain? Just a thought. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapir Tossia (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awesome idea Sapir, but I really struggled to find global statistics. I did find articles that related specifically to certain countries, but seeing that this page is used globally I didn't want to just use statistics from a few countries. That's why I removed the previous statistics from the USA. If you know some articles that have global statistics please send them my way and I'll make some improvements. I also fixed up those references for you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deang95 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, for the student doing this section, I have found some interesting journal articles on treatment of EEC:

Klinke, Urban, Lück, Hannig, Kuhn, & Krämer. (2014). Changes in Candida spp., Mutans Streptococci and Lactobacilli following Treatment of Early Childhood Caries: A 1-Year Follow-Up. Caries Research, 48(1), 24-31.

Çolak, Hakan, Dülgergil, ÇOruh, Dalli, Mehmet, & Hamidi, Mehmet. (2013). Early childhood caries update: A review of causes, diagnoses, and treatments.(Review Article). Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine, 4(1), 29-38.

Twetman, S., & Dhar, V. (2015). Evidence of Effectiveness of Current Therapies to Prevent and Treat Early Childhood Caries. Pediatric Dentistry, 37(3), 246-53. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapir Tossia (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Andres, a dentist who is interested in Evidence-based dentistry. I recently added a quick update about ART vs. Standard care evidence from a Cochrane review in the article . Veon1719 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]