Talk:Dental extraction

message: Just wondering if the image in this page is too scary for people seeking information about dental procedures... I personally have a severe dentist phobia and personally that image doesn't affect me, but I'm sure it will scare many people :) --Appelshine 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dental extraction vedios

message: There was some useful info here, but it was terribly badly written (starting with the heading).  Consistent misspelling of 'dentist' as 'dentrist'; unnecessary exclamation marks; dubious science (chamomile rinses, avoidance of milk and dairy products post-XLA, 'diabetes patients may not receive adrenalin-based shots', bridges can be constructed after 3 weeks); factual errors ('patients will not feel pain during the whole day of or the day after'; and many spelling errors. S.a.h.r.g 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! We have a little pamphlet that says to leave gauze in the mouth for an hour (replacing it out when the gauze gets soggy). It is also school policy.  I thought you would find that humorous. - Dozenist talk 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, there is always the possibility that I am wrong :-).  I just extracted an unrestorable upper left second premolar and I let the lady leave after 10mins with gauze in situ.  Took the (soggy) gauze out and let her leave.  The one time I had trouble with clotting, the first gauze I put in was saturated with blood after 5 mins.  Had to replace it and it took the guy 30 mins to clot.  So my point is, you'll know when you need to leave it in.  Also, there are a lot of things I had to do in dental school that I don't do any more.  More to the point, there were a lot of things I wasn't allowed to do in dental school that I do now, such as take out gauze after 10 mins, use a straight handpiece during surgical extractions (I know, it doesn't make sense to me either), use luxators (the single greatest extraction implement ever invented), use rotary endo kits, use magnification, sign my own treatment plans, prescribe radiographs, prescribe medications, sign my own charts, make treatment planning decisions, charge patients money, etc.  In dental school you learn the basis to learn, in practice you learn.  Don't worry.  The good thing about it is in practice you are in control of what you learn.  What you choose to do and not do determines your learning patterns.  So do a bit of everything, like me.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over the section here... it seemed helpful, but it sounded like it was copied directly off of a post-op information card in the way it directed the reader to do this or that. I tried to edit it. A doctor should revise this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.86.5 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not belong here at all - wikipedia is an information not advice service.  Plus the section does not describe post-extraction healing, it gives advice for post-op care, some of which is dubious at best.  It's gone.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the removal, fwiw. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Advises for patients" 

message: I just edited the reasons for extraction list because it sounded akwardly pamphlet-like. One reason on the list was  Receiving radiation to the head and neck may require extraction of teeth in the field of radiation. Is this a common occurrence? Radiation to the head? Sounds a bit strange. Maybe someone could elaborate if its a real thing, or remove it from the list? Mikeeg555 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Receiving radiotherapy to the head as part of palliative treatment for cancer can damage teeth, causing discoloration and decay.  In pediatric patients, radiation treatments may also cause the destruction of unerupted teeth.  I think that it's a fairly common long-term side effect.  I will do a little more research and then fix the section in question. MeredithParmer 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A significant problem from radiation therapy to the head (to treat cancer) is that you can get osteoradionecrosis of the jaws.  If you need to get an unsalvageable tooth removed after radiation treatment things can get quite complicated because of possible osteonecrosis.  Therefore, teeth are sometimes extracted prior to receiving radiation treatment.  But there are many problems from radiation treatment, such as mucositis and not being able to produce enough saliva (because the cells in the salivary glands may be destroyed by radiation therapy).  Once there is less saliva in the mouth after treatment, teeth are more likely to get decay.  If the decay progresses too rapidly, then the teeth may require extraction, but this would still be undesirable because of the risk of osteoradionecrosis.  See the problem?  So, it is not uncommon to have teeth extracted before radiation therapy to the head if there is a risk of those teeth needing to be extracted after radiation therapy. - Dozenist talk 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Receiving radiation to head?

message: I moved this section to here, because it needs a little bit explanation first:
Much has been made in the media of links between tooth extraction and temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction (problems, including clicking and jamming, of the jaw joint). No research has shown a definitive link between orthodontic treatment, extraction of teeth and jaw joint problems. Most temporo-mandibular joint problems are multifactorial in origin (that is having a number of possible etiologic agents).
It doesn't say what causes what, if something would lead to the other. Do they claim that temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction causes some kind of natural tooth extraction, or is it the opposite way around? Mikael Häggström 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain this

message: The intro paragraph says the "most frequent indication" is tooth decay. 
The 3rd paragraph says the "most common reason" is fracture. I'm not a dentist, so I don't know if there's a technical difference between "indication" and "reason", but at the very least these statements are confusing and apparently contradictory. Can anyone help clean this up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediddle (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have extracted some sentences and filled some others. I hope it all now makes sense. Snalwibma (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most common reason? 

message: Can anybody add more about how the extraction is preformed. Is anaesthesia used? I am personally shit-scared of needles, does that mean I'll have to go through it without anaesthesia? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, and from my own experience with a 3rd molar, local (i.e. needles) anesthesia is the way to go. For virtually all medical procedures, if general anesthesia is not totally necessary, it is eschewed in favor of local. I speculate (not being a medical practitioner) that this is due to a number of reasons, including: inherent danger of general anesthesia; cost; and recovery time. Most dentists don't even have general anesthetics on hand... which means that you'll probably have to suffer the needles: is your phobia really bad enough to forgo anesthetic altogether? Sorry for the late response, i hope all is well. --Storkk (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyones different I found when i had all my wisdom teeth removed in one shot, i had anesthesia, and some tylonol afterwards. The real pain was not being able to eat much afterwards. I love food so much. I would think of cakes, chinese buffets and plan the feasts i would have after it got better. Depneds on your definition of hurt. And everyone is different. (Get the anethesia if you can, its probably something you dont want to remember)130.15.112.169 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it hurt? 

message: Strangely enough, either is fine per .  Well I learned something new today... Interwebs (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: [consults six dictionaries, and then replies] All the dictionaries I look in give minuscule as the primary spelling and miniscule (if at all) as a variant. Some of them list only minuscule. One of them includes a note pointing out that miniscule is "incorrect". I have even seen miniscule used (I forget where) as an example of a spelling that is apparently correct (because of mini–) but is in fact wrong. Good to learn stuff, isn't it! What I have learnt is that there are at least one or two dictionaries that allow the mini– spelling as an alternative. I thought it was simply wrong. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Etymologically, "minus-" makes the most sense, and probably *should* be the only correct spelling. Interwebs (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also one half of a minuscule/majuscule pairing. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miniscule / minuscule 

message: This article doesn't mention any of the criticism which Dental Extraction has received, or its interesting recent history--starting in the 1920's with Weston Price's work on Focal infection theory and continuing today in the 'holistic' or 'biologic' dental movement.  While this article shouldn't offer much legitimacy to those theories, I think a brief mention that the controversy at least exists and has some historical roots might be a good addition.  WP:FRINGE would apply, and the amount of attention should be small, on the order of a few paragraphs at most encompassing the history and current criticisms of tooth extraction, as well as a strong statement of the mainstream consensus on the matter.  Is there any interest in this? Ocaasi c 10:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will likely rework this article at some point. Focal theory of infection in dentistry applies mostly to periodontal disease rather than this topic imo. Lesion (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern and historic controversy 

message: Exodontia is the act, science and theory of tooth extraction. I cannot communicate precisely why I feel this it is inaccurate to call exodontia a synonym of tooth extraction, it just is... sorry for poor detail. Lesion (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Exodontia" and "tooth extraction" not synonymous

message: I read "In the clot, neutrophils the macrophages are involved as an inflammatory response takes place. "  I don't know dentistry but "neutrophils the macrophages" looks like a mistake to me, it doesn't make sense as English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.37.12 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agree. Probably it is meant to say "neutrophils and macrophages" is my guess.  Lesion 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistake? 

message: That section is getting large. Neither is it currently comprehensive. Suggest summary style section here and stand alone article: complications of tooth extraction. Lesion 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style for complications section