Talk:Dental restoration

message: ===Merge (fillings into restorations)===
Here's my rationale for merging: A filling is a type of restoration, therefore, fillings should be discussed in the context of all restorations. One could potentially argue that fillings are separate from other restorations like crowns, and that's true, but the way the dental fillings article is currently laid out doesn't follow those distinctions. The dental restoration article already correctly explains the difference between indirect and direct restorations. The 'dental fillings' article also has non-filling information (like stuff about crowns). In fact, the fillings article is cribbed from the CA dental board material fact sheet about all restorations. So, in an ideal world the article itself should reside under 'dental restoration' and 'dental fillings' should redirect there. The article itself should explain the difference between direct and indirect restorations, and give fillings their due in the direct category. adavidw 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restorations can be "direct" or "indirect".  Direct restorations are fillings.  Indirected restorations are crowns, bridges, and sometimes inlays and onlays. - Dozenist talk 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dental restoration certainly wouldn't be a stub anymore after the material from the fillings article moves there. Basically, I'm suggesting to take all the content in the fillings article, add it to the little content in the restoration article, and then leave it under the restorations name, since that name is more encompassing than the fillings name. Fillings would then redirect to restorations. adavidw 02:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering... what would you suggest then for the articles on crowns, veneers, bridges, inlays, etc?  They would all fit under the article of dental restorations? - Dozenist talk 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion on this would be that if the topic can't support an encyclopedic article on its own, then, yeah, it should be consolidated under restorations. Crowns is already a great article that stands on its own just fine and should stay that way. Inlays/onlays, bridges, and veneers could all probably be covered in their own good article, but right now onlay, bridge, and veneer are just stubs and could possibly be better served by alsomoving them into restorations, at least for the time being. As far as fillings goes, I'm personally of the opinion that the topic can't support an article by itself. I mean, it's just putting wads of stuff into holes in teeth, right? (Just kidding. I'd love to be proven wrong by a really well written comprehensive article just on the topic of fillings). However, this I know: the current fillings article is not really specific to fillings and is wide ranging enough to cover all restorations. Therefore, unless someone wants to do some strong writing of content, I think the best way to handle the existing content is to shuffle it together under restorations. adavidw 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been looking at the articles, and I disagree with the move.  The dental fillings article can be cleaned up pretty easily to encompass only "direct" fillings.  The dental restoration article can be an article on the general topic of all restorations, including a section for direct fillings with an appropriate message as seen in other articles like "See main article: Dental fillings".  The indirect fillings (crowns, bridges, veneers, inlays, and onlays) can have their own links also mentioned, as currently in the article.  Just because some of those are stubs, it does not mean they must be moved to this article.  They can continue to remain as stubs for future edits. - Dozenist talk 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why we have redirects. No one's suggesting that the only way to find information is to type in "restorations".adavidw 10:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Here's my rationale for merging: A filling is a type of restoration, therefore, fillings should be discussed in the context of all restorations. One could potentially argue that fillings are separate from other restorations like crowns, and that's true, but the way the dental fillings article is currently laid out doesn't follow those distinctions. The dental restoration article already correctly explains the difference between indirect and direct restorations. The 'dental fillings' article also has non-filling information (like stuff about crowns). In fact, the fillings article is cribbed from the CA dental board material fact sheet about all restorations. So, in an ideal world the article itself should reside under 'dental restoration' and 'dental fillings' should redirect there. The article itself should explain the difference between direct and indirect restorations, and give fillings their due in the direct category. adavidw 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (fillings into restorations)

message: Since dental restoration is a stub, why no redirect restoration over to dental fillings?  To me they are synonyms - but I will leave it up to you.  I am working on the dental amalgam controversy article and hope to move some of its information over to the world of dental fillings - so keep me up to date on what you are doing
Staypuftman 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restorations can be "direct" or "indirect".  Direct restorations are fillings.  Indirected restorations are crowns, bridges, and sometimes inlays and onlays. - Dozenist talk 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dental restoration certainly wouldn't be a stub anymore after the material from the fillings article moves there. Basically, I'm suggesting to take all the content in the fillings article, add it to the little content in the restoration article, and then leave it under the restorations name, since that name is more encompassing than the fillings name. Fillings would then redirect to restorations. adavidw 02:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering... what would you suggest then for the articles on crowns, veneers, bridges, inlays, etc?  They would all fit under the article of dental restorations? - Dozenist talk 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion on this would be that if the topic can't support an encyclopedic article on its own, then, yeah, it should be consolidated under restorations. Crowns is already a great article that stands on its own just fine and should stay that way. Inlays/onlays, bridges, and veneers could all probably be covered in their own good article, but right now onlay, bridge, and veneer are just stubs and could possibly be better served by alsomoving them into restorations, at least for the time being. As far as fillings goes, I'm personally of the opinion that the topic can't support an article by itself. I mean, it's just putting wads of stuff into holes in teeth, right? (Just kidding. I'd love to be proven wrong by a really well written comprehensive article just on the topic of fillings). However, this I know: the current fillings article is not really specific to fillings and is wide ranging enough to cover all restorations. Therefore, unless someone wants to do some strong writing of content, I think the best way to handle the existing content is to shuffle it together under restorations. adavidw 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been looking at the articles, and I disagree with the move.  The dental fillings article can be cleaned up pretty easily to encompass only "direct" fillings.  The dental restoration article can be an article on the general topic of all restorations, including a section for direct fillings with an appropriate message as seen in other articles like "See main article: Dental fillings".  The indirect fillings (crowns, bridges, veneers, inlays, and onlays) can have their own links also mentioned, as currently in the article.  Just because some of those are stubs, it does not mean they must be moved to this article.  They can continue to remain as stubs for future edits. - Dozenist talk 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why we have redirects. No one's suggesting that the only way to find information is to type in "restorations".adavidw 10:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (restorations into fillings) - Why not just do it the other way around? 

message: I agree with the above, public = more familiar with 'fillings'. However, that doesn't make it correct. I suggest: 
*keep Dental restorations as the official page. 
*'dental fillings' will redirect to the 'restoration' page and description will explain that a filling is a restoration..
*The current 'dental filling' page should actually be renamed to Dental Restorative materials because that is what the content seems to relate to
**. other similar suggestions would be 'direct restorative materials' or 'dental materials' however, 'dental materials' is a fairly broad topic.(Bouncingmolar 07:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative solution to merger: Rename Fillings page

message: Rather than finding an article expressly adressing dental amalgams, there is a dental amalgam controversy article that doesn't even mention Boyd Haley, perhaps the foremost expert on biomarkers associated with the neurotoxicity of heavy metals.  Since the subject is more than controversial enough to warrant a secondary article, shouldn't there be a primary dental amalgam article?  Ombudsman 05:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that as well.  I looked at the history of Dental amalgam, which is currently a redirect, I believe, and I noticed that there used to be an article there, but it was changed to a redirect to amalgam.  It was later changed to a redirect to dental fillings.  I am not sure what information can be placed about other kinds of amalgams in the amalgam article, but if not much then I would think the Dental amalgam redirect should go to amalgam instead of dental fillings.  Another option would be to keep the summary of dental amalgam on the amalgam page, and create a separate in-depth article at the dental amalgam page. Regardless, I think having the redirect go to amalgam instead of dental fillings would be better. - Dozenist talk 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dental amalgam]] article absent

message: It seems odd to classify removable dental prosthesis aka dentures as a removable restoration. I suppose it makes sense to call them restorations, however I feel that this is not conventional. Shouldn't there be rather a page on prosthodontic appliances? (Bouncingmolar 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unconventional, but prosthetics is enveloped by restorative dentistry along with endodontics and periodontics.  Bridges are technically called fixed partial dentures and they are much more easily stomached as a restoration.  I agree there should be a page anyway on prosthodontic appliances.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think periodontics is definately outside the boundaries of this article, I suppose endodontics may play a small role. However there is a very clear definition at the top of the article about what a 'dental restoration' actually is. For consistency, I think that removable prostheses should be removed from this article or replaced with a link. Perhaps even under a title "replacing missing teeth", which may also cover bridges and implants, which should definatly stay in the article. (Bouncingmolar 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removable restorations 

message: I do not think that it is relevant to this article at all, since this is about dental restorations not the materials. There are quite clear links to Dental restorative materials and to the amalgam page which information about current practices and current reasoning behind material selection is more appropriately located. Furthermore mentioning it in the introduction to dental restorations is irrelevant to an introduction into dental restoration. Please do not add it back into the article without discussing first. Bouncingmolar 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to dental amalgam controversy

message: Added the ADVERT tag to flag commercial content for editors. CAD/CAM section is pretty blatant advertising and is not written in an encyclopedic manner.--Bodybagger (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial content in CAD/CAM section

message: I don't want to discredit the great work that has been done on this section, but I feel that embellishing the process of tooth preparation is unnecessary. Tooth preparation is really part of tooth restoration which has this page has splintered from. It is quite a simple concept and I think that a slim description of removing tooth structure is enough. 
I also think that there is no need to discuss extra coronal and intracoronal preparation as this should be covered by the associated types of restoratations which follow these types of preparation ie: mentioned on the dental restoration page and crown and bridge.
Bouncingmolar (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tooth preparation merger proposal

message: Example: 
Tooth preparation is usually required before placing a dental restoration. This process involves cutting the tooth usually with a dental drill to make space for the planned restoration, remove any dental decay and structurally unsound tooth. 
The placement of commas suggests that "remove any decay and ... unsound tooth" refers back to "this process," as in: "this process involves removing decay and unsound tooth." However the fact that "remove any decay and ...unsound tooth" has the same tense as "make space," and that it immediately follows "make space," suggests that it refers back to "cutting the tooth," as in: "cutting the tooth to make space for the restoration and to remove any decay and unsound tooth" — except for the lack of a conjunction, and, just before the word remove. The result is a jumbled, confusing sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor grammar and poor punctuation 

message: Although the terms, by themselves, make the distinction self-evident, the discussion following the terms serves to obfuscate the disntinction between intracoronal and extracoronal preprations, rather than elucidate it. The section may have been more informative if it had simply said stated "preparations may be classed as intracoronal or extracoronal" without adding further verbiage.
Also, crowns inlays and veneers are examples of different kinds of restorations, not of extracoronal preparations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intracoronal and extracoronal preparations