# Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth

Surely there's a way to do this. But dentists associations aren't interested in any developments that reduce their stock market gambling incomes from the future repeat surgeries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC) 

Constructive comment-- Excuse me for criticizing without doing any work here, but I feel that the lead image of the rotating CT is not ideal for the lead... a stationary plain x-ray would be better imo as not everyone will recognize what is being shown in the gif... especially with it rotating upside down etc... Lesion (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback.  I've shown it to a bunch of people because it's not typical.  So far, all the feedback has been quite positive.  Most say that it makes more sense to them than the 2D image (plus I think it looks really cool).  I'm going to leave it up for a while, but I'll ask for more feedback on it from laypeople.  Ian Furst (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Lesion I redid the GIF using video editing software to zoom in on the tooth and limiting the rotation.  I think it'll be less confusing. Ian Furst (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We have one ref in the screening section. Are there more opinions as this appears to be just that of the author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I can get references from maxfac textbooks which state screening is typically done in adolescents.  Because of the debate about prophylactic removal, I was reluctant to include those generic refs.  The one cited, was a conclusion drawn after reviewing evidence for/against (it was just a regular review).  I'll take another look for others where the conclusion is based on systematic review but it may not be out there.  I'll also contact Dodson (he's one of the recognized experts - I've emailed him about this article repeatedly to get help) and see if he knows of other recommendations.  BTW, Hildabast was also involved in the wording of the section on the prophylactic removal controversy. Ian Furst (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot.... and the video? Ian Furst (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Liking the video a lot. Not seen that kind of thing done before but I think it is a great addition to articles. Lesion (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lesion, I wasn't sure if people would like or hate it but I thought the article would work with it because of all the visuals.  Blueraspberry but up an idea page about them at WP:Wiki Loves Health Videos. Ian Furst (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649:added the GA nomination template to this yesterday but don't see it on the GA nominations page.  Any ideas? Ian Furst (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC
I've gone through pubmed and I can't find any other articles that deal specifically with screening recommendations.  I've emailed Dodson to see if he knows of other evidence-based recommendations.  Ian Furst (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I contacted Dr Dodson again at U Washington - he's the expert in the field.  It's straight forward to find various quotes about when to start screening from textbooks but all are based on author opinion. To the best of his knowledge, he's the only one looking at the research from the perspective of active surveillence/screening on this topic.  I'm reluctant to give equal weight to textbook quotes (and I don't expect them to be substantially different) when we have a review paper specifically addressing the topic.  What do you think? Ian Furst (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Furst,
I wonder if, before we evaluate this article against the GA criteria, it might be possible we might make it even better.
Could we do the following?:

I know that many of us are doctors or dentists, not professional writers or editors. Still, perhaps we could copy edit the article for style. Please see the "Style" section, about halfway down this page. Please see also the first half of this essay by User:Tony1.
Perhaps we could also copy edit the article for grammar.
Could we also try to do some of the following more-minor items?: (Note that these items may not be required whatsoever for the article to achieve GA status.)

Perhaps we could make the article more understandable for patients and first-semester dental students. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable has some excellent advice on how to do this, and is well worth looking at.
And, as User:Revent suggested on IRC, perhaps we could make the lead section should be made less detailed. It can still cover all the same topics that it does now, but it still could be condensed more and some information could be removed.
User:Revent also suggested that, in the References section, we could make the page ranges use en dashes. I agree that this is a good idea, although the GA criteria don't require this whatsoever.
I feel that the article is quite useful as it stands already. It taught me all sorts of things about the subject. I especially liked how it discussed the pros and cons of removal. Still, there is no article in the world which couldn't be improved even further.
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree some simplification would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. No reply from User:Ian Furst yet. In fact, I noticed that Dr. Furst, the article's creator and GA nominator, hasn't edited since 18 July 2014. Though this isn't the first time he's been away for a month or more. See his edits-per-day graph (a Flash player is required to see this graph). So I expect he'll probably be back eventually. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Unforgettableid Summer is extremely busy for me (and more so this year), so I've been taking a little wikibreak for motivation.  I'm in it for the long-haul.  I'll look through the article soon.  Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear reviewers: I hope to do the GA review for this article eventually. Please do not review it, and definitely please do not review it before Dr. Furst is back from his wikibreak. Dear @Ian Furst: Thank you for the update. May I temporarily withdraw your GA nomination? (If so, then after you come back from wikibreak, you can nominate it again.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose to review this article which was nominated for "Good article" over six months ago and is the second oldest unreviewed article from the 532 articles currently nominated. I am not particularly knowledgeable about teeth and dentistry so will be looking at the article from a layman's perspective. I will start my review in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


### First reading
In general I find this article well-written and easy to understand and I have removed the "multiple issues" tag which I think is unnecessary. The paragraph on another classification system is the exception, being jargon-laden, and I note that it was added recently by an editor other than the nominator. I note that the nominator is an irregular contributor to Wikipedia and may therefore not be quick to respond to this review, but other editor's with knowledge of the topic are welcome to respond here or make the improvements I am suggesting to the text of the article. Here are some points I noticed:

"One review found that 11% of teeth will have evidence of disease and are symptomatic ..." - Does this refer to teeth in general or just wisdom teeth? Done
"mandibular third molars" - general readers may not know this means lower jaw. 2 instances
"occlusal plane" and "occlusal surface" - more terms unfamiliar to general readers. Done
"Impacted wisdom teeth without a communication to the mouth, that have no pathology associated with the tooth and have not caused tooth resorption on the blocking tooth rarely have symptoms." - Is this statement (which could use an extra comma) covered by the reference in the next paragraph? ref and commas added
" As the teeth near the mouth during normal development, people sometimes report mild pressure of other symptoms similar to teething" - This statement also needs a reference, and "near the mouth" seems rather an odd way of saying "start breaking through the gum", surely they are already in the mouth.  removed sentence.  Was attempting to say that teething hurts too, but off topic.  The entire article is about impacted teeth not normal eruption.
"Impactions completely covered by bone and soft tissue have a low rate of clinically significant pathology – generally small cysts or uncommon tumors that form from the residual epithelial remnants around the crowns of the teeth." - This statement also needs a reference. Done
There is a stray "of people."
"Periodontal probing depths" - needs explaining or linking.  link added
"serum inflammatory markers" - needs explaining or linking.  Done
"radiographic disease" - needs explaining or linking.  reworded
"gingiva" - needs explaining or linking. reworded sentence and added links
The section "Wisdom teeth removal" lacks citations. Done
"In 2000, the first National Institute of Clinical Excellence ..." - What does the "first" refer to?  removed; referred to first set of guidelines
"They also point to the fact that the there is an increase..." - Extra "the". Done
The first paragraph in the section Coronectomy lacks citations. Done
"The prognosis for impacted wisdom teeth depends on the depth of the impaction. When they lack a communication to the mouth, the main risk is the chance of cyst or neoplasm formation which is relatively uncommon." - Is this statement (which could use an extra comma) covered by the reference in the next paragraph? citation added
marked this as "citation needed". I don't think the statement is correct. Yes some odontogenic cysts (eg Keratocysts) develop at the site of a third molar but to my knowledge third molars do not change into neoplasms. If no citation comes forward I shall delete this. El Mustafa (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC) qualified statement: ...tissues around the tooth (such as the dental follicle)...
Wikilink Plato, Hippocrates, Charles Darwin, Paolo Mantegazza, Tomes.  Done
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review User:Cwmhiraeth, I didn't think anyone would get to it.  Thank you for the email too, I've been on a wikibreak.  I'll start making changes this weekend and hit.  Best. Ian Furst (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no rush. My computer is out of action after a thunderstorm and it will take me a few days to get it sorted out. Cwmhiraeth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.79 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have put this review on hold for one week. Improvements made in this period (by anyone) will influence my decision as to whether or not to list the article as a good article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There has been ample time for the improvements mentioned above to be dealt with. A few have been actioned but most have not. I believe this article is close to meeting the GA criteria but does not quite do so. It fails Criterion 2b in that it is insufficiently referenced in places. It also fails Criterion 1a in that some of the prose is difficult for the uninformed reader to understand because of a lack of wikilinking or explanation of technical terms used. When these matters have been addressed it can be renominated for GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is one more article, advising against prophylactic extraction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963310/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 

This is not a grammatically well-formed construction. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F4EC:BD77:C22B:62FD (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Scientist Bill, Doc James Below is a quote from Peterson p.139 (the source for the disputed text). Usual time of formation is 18 years old, but the apex remains open and movement continues until age 25. Just because the root is complete, doesn't mean development has finished as eruption is still part of development.   I think the older age should be used.

The mandibular third molar is the most commonly impacted tooth. It also presents the greatest surgical challenge and invites the greatest  controversy when indications for removal are considered.When the surgeon is determining whether a specific third molar will become impacted and whether it should be removed, he or she needs to have a clear understanding of the development and movement of the third molar between the ages of 7 and 25 years. A number of longitudinal studies have clearly defined the development and eruption pattern of the third molar.4–7 The mandibular third molar tooth germ is usually visible radiographically by age 9 years, and cusp mineralization is completed approximately 2 years later. At age 11 years, the tooth is located  within the anterior border of the ramus with its occlusal surface facing almost directly anteriorly. The level of the tooth germ is approximately at the occlusal plane of the erupted dentition. Crown formation is usually complete by age 14 years, and the roots are approximately 50% formed by age 16 years. During this time the body of the mandible grows in length at the expense of resorption of the anterior border of the ramus. As this process occurs the position of the third molar relative to the adjacent teeth changes, with the third molar assuming a position at approximately the root level of the adjacent second molar. The angulation of the crown becomes more horizontal also. Usually the roots are completely formed with an open apex by age 18 years. By age 24 years 95% of all third molars that will erupt have completed their eruption.  Ian Furst (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


### First reading
I'm leaving the lead for the time being, and will assess it later.
"Of these predictors ..." - This is a curious statement, as the first part of the paragraph is about how impacted teeth are described. reword
"Vertically, Class A impaction..." - I find this sentence confusing. removed example, left in classification system.
"Impactions completely covered ..." - This sentence does not seem grammatically right, with a different subject in the second half of the sentence from the first. expanded
"Peptostreptococcus, Fusobacterium, and Bacteroides" - Scientific names should be in italics. Done
"Crowding of the front teeth is not believed to be caused by the eruption of wisdom teeth although this is a reason many dental clinicians use to justify wisdom teeth extraction." - This sentence is tagged as needing an update. new citation added, conclusions unchanged
"Wisdom teeth continue to move into adulthood ..." - It sounds as if it is the teeth that are becoming adult rather than their owner. Done
"When there is a portion of gums overlying the wisdom tooth that has become infected (called an operculum)," - I don't much care for a "portion of gums", and you have explained what an "operculum" is earlier in the article. Done
"Long-term complications can include periodontal complications ..." - These studies need citations. Done
"... however it is of very low quality evidence and high risk of bias." - This sentence seems grammatically incorrect too. this is a highly controversial paragraph, concensus reached with many including leader from Cochrane.  I'm reluctant to change the wording.  It is straight out of the study
"The Cochrane review of surgical removal versus retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth suggests that ... , however it is of very low quality evidence and high risk of bias." - Leaving out the middle part of the sentence better illustrates what I mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done I see what you mean. It should read, "The Cochrane review found...".  "The studies reviewed in the Cochrane review were of low quality....".  It's two thoughts merged into one, so I've broken it into two separate sentences.
"high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury" - This phrase occurs twice in the same paragraph. Done
That's all I have time for now, I will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Now returning to look at the lead and how well it summarises the rest of the article -

"Common accepted hypothesis that determine eruption is" - This sentence could do with being completely singular or completely plural. Done Removed it entirely, as it's a poorly worded rehash of the information in the next paragraph.
"The condition affects up to 72% of the Swedish population." - This is mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere and could perhaps be omitted.  it's discussed in context of the epidemiology, in that section (last sentence, 2nd paragraph).   It's the only item in the lead that addresses frequency of disease.
I have taken the cite out of the lead and have added that it is a Swedish study in the Epidemiology section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
On the whole the lead is satisfactory, but I feel that the article has too many single-sentence or very short paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an unfortunate byproduct of my writing style.  My tendency is to single-sentence-paragraphs common to web pages.  I'll slowly work my way thru to make the writing more fluid.  Ian Furst (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I've made some changes (e.g. first paragraph) to remove the short sentences, and make the paragraph structure more complex. This is not my forte, and hope it's OK.  Ian Furst (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I have made a couple of changes, which you can reverse if you wish, and have reread the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


### GA criteria
The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. 
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research. 
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed. 
The article is neutral. 
The article is stable. 
The images are relevant, have suitable captions and are appropriately licensed. 
Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria.  Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the article linked in the classification section (see history of my edit), and although the article laid out the classifications of wisdom teeth, the occurrence rates of disease of impacted teeth, broken down by symptomatic and asymptomatic, was absolutely nowhere to be found in the article. This should be removed, or the correct source should be cited. Getav3i32 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Towards the end of the lead, there's text that says this: The condition can be common, with up to 72% of the Swedish population affected. Are there any reliable medical sources out there that show how common this is globally? Without context it's difficult to know if Sweden is typical or not. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this article also needs to explain what exactly the term "communicating with the mouth" means. I added a jargon tag to the first usage of it but it's used later on in the article as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The editor who submitted this for GA review hasn't edited in a few years. Is there any chance you'd be interested in improving this content since you were the GA reviewer? I don't think these issues are substantial enough to initiate a WP:GAR but it's still nice to keep an eye on the quality of GAs over time. Please don't feel obligated, though. I understand if you have other priorities! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)