Talk:Tooth enamel

message: "Tooth enamal can be attacked and destroyed by lengthy exposure to acids created in the mouth by eating or drug use (including cocaine)." The article on Cocaine says that this is myth. Which article is correct? From the cocaine article "A common misconception is that the smoking of cocaine breaks down tooth enamel and causes tooth decay." User:JohnJohn
:When I gave this article a nearly-complete face lift, I referred to many of my textbooks and other sources, but could not find evidence for the quote you are referring to, which was in this article's earlier version.  Consequently, if memory serves me correctly, I did not include it in the update.  I will be taking many more courses on drug dependecy/abuse and pathology.  If I run into anything definitive on cocaine's effect on tooth enamel, I will add what I learn. J.R. Franco 03:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocaine

message: I wanted to write on this topic because I would definitely be still be considered a novice at this--- there are many things I do not know yet how to do.  Despite this, I tried my best to figure out the best way to cite my sources in the text, and decided to use the citation method found in Pope Benedict XVI.  If I did this incorrectly, then either let me know or just help me fix it! dozenist 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: After looking at the article Water fluoridation, I realized my little section on the benefits of fluoride to enamel could be more "controversial" than I initially intended.  Thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that there is no possible way to omit talking about fluoride in a truly complete article on enamel.  Further, the article goes in length about the benefits of fluoride, and I think it does so appropriately since it is very much in line with the vast majority of dental/health research, the vast majority of biochemical research, and the vast majority of the professionals' viewpoints in those respective fields (this includes the sucess of fluorinated water against dental caries).  The politics and "controveries" surrounding water fluoridation, I believe, should not be placed here (perhaps still linked to if it is a must?) and would be placed preferably in its own article. dozenist 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, the article's discussion of fouridation is appropriate and scientific.  Honestly, the water flouridation article needs to either: 1) be moved to an article titled Water Flouridation (controversy) or the like, or 2) be expanded to include some actual, scientific information instead/in addition to the conspirational ravings that currently fill it. - Jersyko 22:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
---
There is a clarification needed for distinguishing calcium fluoride (fluorite) and sodium fluoride, as the original editor claims they are different in the dental health context but does not discuss why. It is commonly known among chemists that sodium salts are almost always much more soluble than the equivalent calcium salts. This means that between two solutions of each salt at the same concentration, the calcium fluoride will release fewer free fluoride anions. Fluorite, the most common natural flouride source, also contains the calcium cation which should more greatly assist remineralization than other fluoride salts. However, fluorite is exceedingly insoluble in water. The exact difference in mechanism between only fluorite and only artificial fluoride I can only speculate, though I strongly believe that the best results for remineralization would come from coadministration of calcium ions and fluoride from different sources. Further, due to the low solubility of calcium fluoride, fluoridation of calcium-containing drinks is certain to reduce the amount of dissolved calcium (and precipitate fluorite from solution or suspension), thereby diminishing the dietary benefit of said drink (namely milk, famously publicized for its calcium content, and commonly fluoridated commercially).
 
According to a public fluoridation system census in the US in 1992 (cited on the Water Fluoridation wiki page), sodium fluoride was a minority fluoride source, comprising only 9% of bulk treatment feedstock. This is ironic, as sodium fluoride is often targeted by fluoride critics, as opposed to the "scarier sounding" names of the silicon-containing majority sources of fluoride. Fluorosilicic acid and its disodium salt comprised 63% and 28%, respectively. 
As a personal side note, the amount of collateral evidence for fluoride - that is, with respect to components of human health that don't involve the remineralization feature of fluoride - is lacking. Some of the alarmism of fluoride critics is understandable mainly because the prevalence of the practice itself assumes there are no adverse health effects, in a strange society-wide example of confirmation bias. Studies of non-dental adverse effects are further complicated by the fact that actual per-person exposure to fluoride is difficult to measure precisely over a large sample set. Several studies which concluded that fluoridation at appropriate levels bears no negative health consequences were statistical studies with little or no attention paid to any individual cases, or were conducted with unsatisfactory control sets. Since nearly every person in developed nations is regularly exposed to fluoride, either by consumption or dental hygiene, finding "statistically equivalent" individuals with exceptionally low or zero exposure to fluoride (the only proper controls in a fluoride study) is obviously very difficult. To this end, I believe any legitimate, well-conducted study which finds significant side effects of any kind (besides the obvious fluorosis) should be publicized, since such results are relatively more valuable.
---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.251.139 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fluoride

message: The above is a quote from this in-depth and technical article which demonstrates to me the necessity of established dentistry to support the status quo.  
A northern Wisconsin small town close to where I used to live has a strong advocacy group led by a dentist pushing for the elimination of flouride from the city's water.  Looking at the Federal Government info page for communities flouridating their water, one sees that less than 50% communities flouridate their water.  Slowly the government is increasing the content of allowable flouride in our water and food as an additive.  
I am disappointed to see in the award-winning site no negative information as to flouride, no negative information as to the harmful effects of acidic foods, and the repeated "sugar" warning with no substantial studies to show that this is the case.  
I would like to see less main stream iteration and more concern as to the fact that dental carries, despite years of flouridation, have not decreased in any meaningful way.  
I would like to see more information as to reenamilization of teeth, and theories that support alternative views of this vital subject as studies have shown the level of mouth bacteria as recorded as C Reactive Protien blood levels is the greatest danger to the heart.  
I am disappointed that this technical article reflecting science has failed to include anything less than supportive of the accepted method of treatment for dental health.  
The emphasis on tooth development, which precluded any oppositional comment, leaves the reader wondering why so much technical information is here when the care of the teeth, including treatment outside mainstream theory, is excluded.  Especially when one considers that this type of dental care is the major choice outisde the Western community.
*I think, perhaps, that you might have missed this article: water fluoridation controversy.  There is plenty of "negative information as to fluoride" there. - Jersyko talk 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When the pH in the mouth initially decreases from the ingestion of sugars, the enamel is demineralized and left vulnerable for about 30 minutes. 

message: This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, since this version only includes a limited number of articles.  It is now held ready for a later version such as Version 1.0 nomination. Walkerma 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 0.5 nomination failed

message: Why is there no coverage of remineralizing enamel via diet or newer topical products, e.g. Recaldent and ACP? See for example 
SomeNumpty 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remineralization strategies 

message: As a metallurgical engineer, I have concerns about the adsorption of mercury from amalgams used in dental cavities. As a child I was told that the mercury was "locked up" in the amalgam. As an adult, my amalgams have become brittle and had to be replaced suggesting that story of mercury staying in the amalgam was a lie. As a metallurgical engineer, I understand that it is impossible for the mercury not to leak into the digestive fluids and hence into the body. Yet dentists still recommend this method. 
Perhaps the mercury acts as an anti-bacterial agent suppressing caries, and that benefit has to be weighed against the effect of mercury on the brain and liver. I also note that a resin filling does not require the undercutting of the enamel as an amalgam does to hold the filling in place, a glue does that job. I have a crown because an over zealous dentist cut too much out of the tooth to support an amalgam filling. 
It would be good if we could have an honest discussion of this topic by those who know more than I do. I currently have replaced most of my amalgams with resin, even after being told that it was more expensive and would not last as long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkyVA (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgam vs Resins 

message: This is a confusing and misleading title.  This would imply that humans are not animals.  Also in MOS:headMOS:headwp:MOS#head, it says "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article ... .".  Therefore, I will revert the rvv, and start this discussion thus.96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment I made it a compromise with "Enamel in nonhuman animals," because "Enamel in..." should definitely be there (I didn't look at MOS, but no matter what MOS says, just "Nonhuman animals" doesn't tell the reader much about what's going to be in the section). But I agree with the editor who reverted you before—while humans are technically animals, in almost all uses "animals" refers to nonhumans, and specifying "nonhuman animals" is really splitting hairs in an unnecessary way. —Politizer talk/contribs 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also notice that this issue was raised 3 years ago, with no explicit consensus reached (as far as I can tell). —Politizer talk/contribs 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Other mammals" as an alternative, or "Enamel in other mammals" if you like.  I didn't take a close look at the prior discussion, but the section only deals with mammals so it seems reasonable and sounds less overly-PC.--otherlleftI can take the heat 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the article, and since it is "enamel" instead of "tooth enamel", I GUESS I'm ok with it, but this is a really fine line.  I would prefer if we used something that can globally include, incase something pops up, that we need to include reptiles (say, incase that biology finds that reptiles do also have enamel, or at least some or one species).96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, other mammals seems the most appropriate.  We will use that.96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but I'm gonna keep "In."  "Other mammals" alone, like I said, doesn't give the reader a good idea what the section's going to be about.  And sections starting with "In" are pretty standard. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enamel in animals 

message: Is it actually a tissue, or is just an organic substance. Maybe there should be something as to whether it is or isn't. I'm guessing no, because I can't see how something so hard (like rock) could also be organic, that could also grow. The snare (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is tooth enamel made of cells?

message: It looks like references to the article were poorly defined from the beginning. So, I reverted to my revision back. Soft drinks do dissolve enamel :(  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivesud (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Sven Manguard 

message: I would like to know if there is fluorine naturally present in the enamel, i.e. before any toothpaste containing it is used. Is there anyone who could add this information? --Nefronus (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluorine naturally present? 

message: "The combination of fluoride ion and QAS was found stronger antimicrobial effect on many oral bacteria associated with dental decay, including S. mutans."
What is this QAS and where is the source?
thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.119.13 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is QAS? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Tooth enamel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050521075135/http://www.ada.org/public/topics/whitening_faq.asp to http://www.ada.org/public/topics/whitening_faq.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031011064508/http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/teeth.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/teeth.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414192523/http://www.thejcdp.com/issue001/gandara/gandara.htm to http://www.thejcdp.com/issue001/gandara/gandara.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://rev.tamu.edu/stories/04/041504-6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It may(?) be good to add a (very?) brief note about this study to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
Scientists report the development of artificial tooth enamel from aligned assembled hydroxyapatite nanowires, a biomimetic material that has superior properties to natural tooth enamel and shows potential for use i.a. in dentistry (if found, made or further developed to be compatible with the mouth environment).
Maybe it could be considered another approach to the regeneration reported on 30 August 2019 with info about it in the section #Regrowth.
Maybe it is (also?) relevant for inclusion at Biomimetic material or a new list related to it or Restorative dentistry or an article like(!) Timeline of dentistry research and development (see Template:Science year nav).
 Prototyperspective (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "Multiscale engineered artificial tooth enamel"