Talk:Calculus (dental)

message: Does anyone know, if there where any cases of retinal detachment following ultrasonic calculus removal ? I know about one case, who had it following the procedure, at 2 weeks.(But he also had severe myopia and lens implants-both favorizing the detachment.)
I am taking advantage of the global knowledge: is this case a pure coincidence, or are there any other cases?
Sincerely,
DokX
:I have not heard about that happening or of that risk from using the ultrasonic. Sounds like a very unique case. - Dozenist talk 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I replaced this fact and provided a reference.  I did my final year dissertation on this topic, so any questions you may have, feel free to ask. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Periodontal and Systemic Disease Links

message: Can anyone provide anything on what constitutes calculus? Knowing the mechanics behind calculus formation might lead to improved techniques for its prevention and removal. Nahum Reduta (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cecil Adams claims it's made of calcium phosphate, or in essence, it's made of TEETH. That's bizarre to me, since plaque is made of bacterial goo, and having teeth covered in calcium is a -good- thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: has some good info. Steved424 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition 

message: I put a  tag on the article mostly because of its adjectives.  Eg from the intro alone, "continuous presence", "rough surface", "ideal medium", "unaesthetic stains".  These constitute subjective statements, not encyclopedic in nature.  --Una Smith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Quote: "Calculus absorbs unaesthetic stains far more easily than natural teeth." -- ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.48.76 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that calculus stains more easily than tooth structure.  Because tooth structure exists preformed when it enters the oral cavity, it must undergo staining much like anything else that is preformed, such as a wall or a table.  Calculus, however, forms from plaque that remains in the mouth and becomes calcified by salivary components, such as calcium and magnesium.  Thus, stain is more easily taken up by calculus because concentric layers form in the environment of stains that become integrated into the fabric, so to speak, of the calculus. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean ? 

message: Perhaps this section ought to be removed; it appears to be speculative in nature and expresses a serious misunderstanding of both the action of fluoride ions in dental systems and of chelation in general: fluoride ions can in no way serve as a chelating agent.
Calculus disolution has been documented in JADA since 1985.  Sodium Fluoride combined with Pyrophophates removes calculus, period.  Please review the research.  Periogen does not harm bacteria, and thus is not under the control of the FDA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmore (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Doug. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising untested products. I'm removing this section. If you want to put it back, please provide a reliable medical source, rather than photos from a single patient, which constitute original research. Regards.  41.244.86.146 (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi again, Doug. Please actually go and read the original research policy page. The first two sentences: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." This very clearly applies to the content you keep adding. Also relevant is the opening line of the Verifiability policy page, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So it is great if this content gets published, but until then it really is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I wish you luck, but I am removing this section again, and will keep doing so until you provide a citation from a reliable source. 41.244.86.146 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I've removed it as I agree that section is just not encyclopaedic and far too close to being an advertisement for your product. As someone mentioned above, please do look at WP:OR and WP:REF. And beware of WP:3RR. You should aim to get WP:Consensus here before adding it back. Thanks. Mcewan (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It really isn't just about the product references. Wikipedia does not include original research, which this section is. Please actually read the WP:OR and WP:REF. And don't question our motivation. Part of the success of Wikipedia is due to its excellent inclusion policies, and we simply seek to see them upheld. Read the original research links, and then if you still think the information should be included, come and present your argument on the talk page. Please don't just keep adding material that obviously goes against wiki policy and current consensus. Manbeargore (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on dissolution 

message: the bugmore contributor and other aliases should state in *every* submission: his/her/their/individual and / or corporate affinity, to any vested interests.
- Otherwise, it's just like reading the top 'results' in a certain search engine.
- A preponderance of unverified rave reviews there reeks of mountebanking and marketing and charlatanry and snake-oil product-placement, postulation.
- Short word for all that is 'plugging'.
- No place for that in an encyclopedia, online or otherwise.
- That's my three cents worth.
- I suggest treat with reserve the mention of any cure-all product until it gets verifiable independent evaluation. 
- Otherwise any quack may use the medium with impunity.
87.113.1.158 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  product placement 

message: The article doesn't mention how calculus is mechanically removed (physically removed using surgical tools), and the section regarding chemical dissolution is immensely unclear, nor does it cite any sources. I have added the appropriate tags. LiamSP (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Information Regarding Removal of Calculus 

message: The final section of the article on the formation of dental calculus needs review by an oral biochemist. The discussion of the formation mechanism of dental plaque demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic physics and chemistry principles for salt properties and mineral deposition. The moist environment of the mouth and the ceramic nature of the teeth are unlikely to allow significant charge imbalance on the surface of the teeth that could create preferential mobility of ions in the saliva, and charge neutrality of the depositing calcium phosphate must be maintained. The site where calculus forms must attract an equivalent portion of Ca2+ and PO43- ions to make the salt deposit.  Any electrical imbalance would attract either calcium or phosphate and repel the other, leading to poor formation.
Just taking a guess, I would say that dental calculus is mineralized through the same mechanisms that remineralize the enamel after an acidic meal.  However, I do not have a reference, and I would appreciate the input of an expert.
97DA12 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation Section needs review 

message: The article need more information about tooth eruption
 Idrisadambd (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  tooth eruption