User talk:Dozenist/archive4

Ar... nuts. That took forever. Is there some other way of doing it without reverting it completely. I've added heaps of stuff including references (which were missing) in the old version of mouth ulcer (now aphthous ulcer; and i didn't delete any information just relocated it. I originally moved it to apthous ulcer by the way but then realised i'd done a great big typo D'oh... so the only way i could fix it was to copy and paste... i spose i should have asked an admin. Do you think any of the content is far reaching by the way? thanks for the compliment part :)(Bouncingmolar 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)) ... maybe an admin could add the history? .... am i supposed to talk with you on my page or yours??Reply

Great edit and additional explanation to this article - Thank you.

Just as a matter of citation style, I note you source repeatedly from the same book, and quite correctly indicate the pages for each fact given. I know this type of multiple linkage to different pages within a source gets discussed as an example of problems within wikipedia of using separate reference/footnote sections, and for the debates over various WP:Footnotes systems. So, just as a thought, I wonder if it might not look neater to give the full book citation in a "Reference section" as:

• Okeson, Jeffrey P. "Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion". 5th edition. Mosby, Inc. 2003. ISBN 0323014771.

And then for each Footnote link requiredm, use a Harvard style abbreviated format, within the ref tags, for giving the page numbers, eg:

<ref>(Okeson 2003) p198</ref>

There clearly is no right way in wikipedia, but I just wondered on your thoughts as this is the first article I've been active in where I have seen this come up :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought you would be interested in the latest post (at the bottom of that page) about renaming.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to help you with writing articles when I can. Let me know. I added myself to the list of participants on the the dentistry Wikiproject - if that's ok. --Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should just leave it in for now, then check back in a few weeks to see if it is still there. I don't want to go through that whole mess again. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Replying from my userpage: I don't know. I can't recall a balfours bakery being well known in Australia and the Vanilla Slice is far more common than the Napoleon in Australia. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C]   13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know you probably dread the sight of this above. Every dentist does, whether on a page or in a mouth. I added a little piece on the talk page that you may want to peruse at your leisure. I think this article should either be completely deleted or simplified to the point where arguments about what treatments work and what don't doesn't come into play because as I said on the talk page, there is little if any evidence supporting one modality over another and that this is a poorly understood area of dentistry at best. Let's just say, I wouldn't agree with pat8722 at all, in any way (dislocated shoulder??!! basic anatomical knowledge contradicts this analogy!!). Evidence can be produced supporting or contradicting any point of view on here. Anyway, something has to be done, a consensus will not be reached because one doesn't exist. Let me know what you think. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In answer to what you said on my talk page about TMJ article - agreed. In Ireland (where I graduated) and I would say the UK also, we say handpiece. Who says drill anymore? Only patients I would imagine. While it would be enjoyable to say things like "I have to drill your teeth now" to see the look on a patient's face (well some patients anyway), I don't know anyone who does it. Not a practice builder. I have become aware of four differences in dentistry practiced this side of the water and in North America. First, cavity prep design is slightly different. From what I can gather, North American dentists like to use slightly converging walls in their fillings, whereas here, cavosurface angle is god, and no undermined enamel should exist. So we prepare parallel walls (or try to, even though most of the time we used pear shaped 330 burs). The second is that Americans use the Universal system of tooth notation, whereas we generally use the Zsigmondy-Palmer system or the FDI (or sometimes a mixture of both - it gets annoying). The third is that Oral Med specialists from this side of the water seem to have a disdain for Oral Med specialists in the U.S. in particular (I don't know why). The fourth is that very rarely do orthodontists prescribe the removal of teeth in North America, whereas here it is often seen as a viable and successful treatment option.

In all these things, I'm not trying to say who is right (I actually agree with Universal system because each tooth has its own identity - reduces confusion), merely to point out differences that I have noticed. In everything else, we are the same. In fact, the past two deans of my school were professors in the States before they came home (one of perio in Loma Linda, the other in New England somewhere - not sure) and the majority of department heads are American educated. I am hoping that my school gets accredited in Canada (apparently all the Irish schools are soon) so I can move there and practice. AAAAnnnyyywaaayyy. Handpiece. The good thing is that the word handpiece can have sexual connotations just as drill can, which was the source of much mature amusement on the clinic floors during my undergrad. You'll understand (I don't think non-dentists will) that you have to amuse yourself somehow as a dental student.

(That was the other difference I forgot - dentistry is an undergrad course here.) Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 11:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess that things are a bit closer than I thought. When I say disdain, I feel it is a poor reflection on the consultants who expressed the sentiment, not the consultants about whom it was expressed. It's a pity, because things are obviously so close, that my degree doesn't entitle me to practice there. One of these days, maybe.

Dozenist, I replied to your comments on the talk page of the article. I don't feel very strongly about the issue at all, except that the page should be consistent both internally and with its title, as you pointed out. I think that User: Preacherdoc's analogy was totally false, since as far as I know (I'm not a biologist), most living tissue substances end in "-in" in all English languages, and (s)he seems to be suggesting to start saying "haemoglobine", "insuline", etc. But this is just my 2¢.--Storkk 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dozenist, I saw that you have created/contributed to quite a few dental articles. I recently added a photo of an (well, my) extracted wisdom tooth to Extraction (dental) and Wisdom teeth. I'd like to know if you think this addition was appropriate or not. (this is the first file i've ever uploaded to wikipedia, and one of the first non-trivial edits i've made). Not being a dentist, i had no idea until i saw the actual tooth, how normal it was. Given that this isn't really explained in the articles i thought the photo might be appropriate. Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --Storkk 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS. In the "Wisdom teeth" article, i kept the title's usage for the caption, but in the "Extraction (dental)", i used '3^rdrd molar', since I understand that that's the correct term. Please correct me if i'm wrong. --Storkk 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. I actually mentioned in the "Talk: Extraction (dental)" page that I couldn't find an appropriate location for the photo. I should have put that statement in both talk pages. Doesn't really belong in "Types of extraction", nor in "Post-extraction healing" (for the Extraction page); nor "post-extraction problems" or any other relevant section of the Wisdom teeth page. I'll let your better judgement sort it out. --Storkk 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just made some edits to Explorer (dental), and to its talk page. As this is your page, any comments are welcome, and if you feel i've ruined parts of the article, please feel free to revert. I think rephrasing made it say exactly the same thing, but now it seems there are some unanswered questions. --Storkk 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure what would be a good reference for my comments about FDA regulation of amalgam. The only thing I can think of is the Code of Federal Regulations itself, since it states the law under which FDA has the authority to regulate medical devices. I guess I thought that the regulation of devices by the FDA is a fact known by anyone in the medical device industry and I was just trying to correct the statement in the article that miss-represents the involvement of the FDA in the regulation of amalgam. DentMat 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

http://wildwoodsurvival.com/tracking/skulls/dentalformulae.html

-Crunchy Numbers 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking me to look over your list of dental stubs to see if any thing had a cross-over into wider medicine. To be honest, I failed to recognise (let alone understand) most of the terms in the list.

However if you need any help with any specific article in terms of copyediting (especially if you need a non-dentist opinion as to whether the article is pitched at an appropriate level for a "lay" reader) or if you need help with citation templates or navigation template construction (e.g. template:drugbox) - do ask :-)

I did learn though that there is more than one system of numbering teeth, and that the system I have always used had a name - Palmer notation. Indeed the only notation I have ever seen from UK dentists on writing to GPs is this system. How sad then that Palmer notation did not yet exist - so I have created it ! The early history of the method via Adolf Zsigmondy, but difficult to research into this due the similarly named Richard Adolf Zsigmondy (Cheemist who won Nobel Prize in 1925) :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

We don't see much as far as caries in dogs, but cats get forls (feline odontoclastic resorptive lesions) often. I've been meaning to write an article on it, especially since there is a nice picture on commons I can use (Image:FORL.jpg). I'll probably do it tomorrow or this weekend, and I'll link to it from the dental caries page. --Joelmills 20:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and created the page - Feline odontoclastic resorptive lesion. Please clean it up or correct it as necessary, as dentistry is not one of my strong suits. --Joelmills 00:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know I haven't been on in a while, so howzitgoin? I just dropped by to let you know that your plural consistency in the usage of the word 'caries' in the article "Dental Caries" is not grammatically correct. The usage of plural or singular forms is defined by the context of usage, for example: in the article it says "Caries on a tooth's surface that are nearest the cheeks or lips are called...". This should read: " Caries on a tooth's surface that is nearest the cheeks or lips is called..." as the context is defined by the singularity of "surface" - this should denote a singular caries or carious lesion. Just thought you might like to know. I'm not going to change it if you're happy, it is a minor point, but I'm a bit obsessive when it comes to these things. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know I've been away, just started work ITRW as it were. I think that your work on the article is absolutely amazing and that you have the patience of a saint. Particularly when it comes to people doing potshot edits and ruining your good work! There are a couple of things that need to be adjusted and I'm not too sure about the whole veterinary caries section - it's a bit sparse. I'll try and do bits and pieces of edits when I can just to insignificantly lighten your load. Let me know. I'm not really interested in contributing to the current WikiProject, as it is something that I don't know in detail, and you guys seem to have it well nailed (well done - a topic that I find unbelievably boring, but to each his own as they say). I guess that's what it takes to be a true wikipedian - the ability to polish articles that hold no interest to you. I don't know if I'll ever have that level of patience!Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm in. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 00:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've read through Prognathism. I don't see much wrong with it except it is incomplete, poorly written and needs a wikify. If this is going to be classed as a dentistry article, the anthropology stuff has to go, or at least has to be placed in a context, so that accusations of racism aren't bandied about. The historical stuff has to go unless it is placed in context. This should be a rewrite as it is a significant oversimplification (no mention of retrognathism, or basal relationships, ceph analysis, etc). The title is wrong also, it should be orthognathics - this would give context. I will try to work on it this week and next. I may write offline and upload then. I don't know a huge amount about this subject.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, is this legit? · j e r s y k o talk · 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

continued from the dental cavity article discussion page

What is it called when the enamel of the tooth starts flaking off (when ridge develops on the surface of a tooth--the back of one of the front teeth in my case) and the teeth are transparent at the bottom? Are they related phenemenon? Brentt 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a picture of it? And can you describe it more? Is this all of sudden or born with it? Any other weird phenomenon? - Dozenist talk 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't born with it, its only developed within the past couple of years. My father started to develop the same kind of ridge--notably without the transperency--a little before I did (which was later in life for him obviously). I don't have a good enough camera to take a picture of it with that it would show up well. Maybe this drawing will help?

There is no "rotting" (yet, *cross my fingers*). And I havn't actually felt or seen the tooth "flake". I just noticed there was a rid1ge one day. I think its getting more pronounced though. I have impeccable dental hygiene. Brush and floss atleast twice a day, sometimes more, and I go out of my way to not eat sugary foods (I never drink soda or syrupy drinks). And on the rare occasion I do eat sugary foods, I brush as soon as I can; if I can't brush within an hour, I won't eat sugary foods. If I drink acidic fruit juices I make sure to rinse very well with water and brush as soon as possible.

When I was a adolescent (after my permanent teeth but before puberty) I used to love to eat lemons straight like one would eat an orange (my father never ate lemons so far as I know). Maybe that has something to do with it?

Thanks for taking even a little bit of interest in this. I'm totally at a loss to find any information about it, because I don't know the name, and it is apparently a pretty rare phenemenon. I'm pretty broke, so I can't afford to go to a dentist right now (my father did, and he found a dentist that put this artificial enamel like stuff on the back. It cost like $1500 though, and they didn't really tell him what the problem was, just fixed it.)Brentt 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

? bruxism, grinding, parafunctional habits => attrition? Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I had a go at your image. The new one is image:Toothdecay.png What do you think? Lycaon 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've used Wikipedia for years, but just got into editing/writing recently (as I'm studying for boards). I'd like to help write about dental topics and I noticed your group! How can I get involved? (Probably not very heavily until after boards!) Amalgamator 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time right now to do it myself (I was just informed that we're going to eat lunch with Jenna's grandmother for her birthday, though I wish I would have been informed as such before I ate lunch . . .), but I think you might want to take a look at this edit to dental amalgam controversy. I don't know if it needs to be completely reverted, extensively reworded, or just tweaked, but NPOV is the concern, obviously. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply