Talk:Abfraction

message: I marked this article as a stub due to its length and as having mid importance.  Hopefully a picture or diagram can be found, and further explanation will help improve the article. - Dozenist talk 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I have updated the causes area to reflect the research I have done so far. The wording can certainly be changed around as I'm not entirely happy with it at this stage but it is a start. I spent quite a while writing this offline then uploading it so I could edit it before having to write save then re-edit the page. Talkteeth (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Talkteeth, I like what you have done, it is a good start to the page and im sure we can work together on wording it appropriately once the page is nearer to completion. I too have just begun editing the clinical features section and need to alter it a bit more. I am planning on drawing up a diagram in relation to appearance of the three types of abfraction lesions which I have noted/cited (that's why there is an, in reference to figure 1 in there). Ebd2015 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I've added the start for the controversial concept area, however I'm having a lot of trouble finding actual references as to why it's so controversial. There seems to be 2 or 3 theories as far as I can find to date. I will put up some brief information on these theories soon but my part seems to repeat a lot of what you guys are saying just linking some topics and ideas together. I'll keep adding stuff as I find it. Glen holtkamp oht (talk)
Hi Glenholtkampoth, I think that it is important to include these theories to give a correct impression about the theoretical concept behind abfraction. I don't think it matters if you mention things that we have previously, as long as you're not re-explaining things (you can always refer readers to other sections for further information) and I think the whole idea is to link the concepts together. Sounds like you're on the right track!Moc24 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I'm planning on talking about the initial classification from 1991 in this section? Thoughts? I feel it would fit here best of the sections we currently have, but was wondering if I should add it under another subtitle labled "history"?
Moc24 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Moc24, I think adding a history tab would be a good idea as many Wikipedia pages have them. Even if we include 'history' and not 'what is abfraction?' I still think it would act as a good introduction for the page 101.182.68.90 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we need the history section or not as I'm not sure that you'll be writing too much about it? Is it more just saying that the initial name was created in 1991? Or are you going to do more? Do we need that information? Or is it going into too much information? Talkteeth (talk)
I think if we were to include a history simply saying that it was created in 1991 would be enough. It would add to the emphasis that it's a 'new' idea. If we were to include more information would we be repeating ourselves? If we don't include the history I though maybe we could just write a brief sentence about it in the 'abstract' at the top of the page? It would be a good introductory line so the reader understands that its a developing concept Ebd2015 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello talkteeth, ive noticed that a paragraph I was working on has been placed under your designated section (causes). Its the one on how abfraction is 'theoretical in nature'. I am happy having it here as it does tie in well, however I don't mind if you would like it placed back under the signs/symptoms. Let me know what you think! Ebd2015 (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, yes that sounds like a good idea, I will aim to have this organized by tonight Ebd2015 (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.Talkteeth (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the 'signs and symptoms' page I have added in another sentence outlining that abfraction lesions are hypothesized to only occur above the CEJ and referenced them accordingly. The references provide some really good information for people to look over in relation to the theories of abfraction Ebd2015 (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Toothwear caused by toothbrushes is termed abrasion not abfraction. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. My little comment only about all photos on this article. On photoes we see phenomenon of electro-erosion. Nylon of brushes "electrified", may be to -500V and this phenomenon electrifies tooth to +500V as dipole. This is anode process that will transform any hard material into gas, even iron, glass, stainless steel, diamond or any other. Change brush to other material - change dipole and tooth will not be anode. If interesting true name of this process is Oxidation or Burning. Sorry my English. Zgrad (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Ah I see what you mean. It would be good to cover this somewhere in the toothwear articles. I know we have galvanic pain or oral galvanism, but this concept seems entirely different. Would need reliable sources to back this up. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Only for specialists if interesting, similar burning occurs in some kinds of footwear. Sometimes there is a strong gas out of its feet and socks. Polyester/nylon socks and footwear may be in -500V and foot burn in +500V dipole. Change dipole, change socks/footwear - no foot burning.  Sorry for off-topic. Zgrad (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Abfraction? 

message: I'm putting this section here so my references and any ideas that I come up with can be placed somewhere so I can get it down on paper, so to speak. reference for controversy under first 2 citation needed is from this link, having trouble referencing it for the wikipedia setup - http://www.tenndental.org/doctda/43questions.pdf -. Glen holtkamp oht (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, been a bit inactive for a while. I'm working on a cartoon for the controversy section, with some luck it should be up in a day or two. Glen holtkamp oht (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Hi all, so I have uploaded information in regards to treatment options, looking forward to your feedback. I am not too sure whether it is worthwhile adding specific treatment options for specific causative problems; as this is still such an grey and ambiguous area within the literature it makes it quite difficult. I also am wondering if it is worthwhile mentioning about different materials used when using a restoration as treatment. There is much evidence in the literature supporting the use of different adhesive materials, such as GIC, flowable, and composite. I am just wondering if this is worth while or maybe too much information for the lay person?? Misshygiene (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also as our page is now gaining more information I think it would be worth while looking into how we can get our page rated againMisshygiene (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I think if you perhaps add a few treatment options but just place 'links' to other Wikipedia pages in it should suffice. But once you've done that and if you think more information is needed then we can work on this. As for the materials, I would just add perhaps, 'white' and 'metal' fillings for example. Ebd2015 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think although we have to keep some of our language simple some people hopefully reading this will have some idea so i think we can still add some so those who want more information will have it and yes by linking to the other pages they can keep reading if they want more. Talkteeth (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all, I was wondering if there has been any progress into getting our page re-evaluated? Would you like me to research how this is done? Moc24 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment Options

message: Hi guys. I edit a lot of oral pathology/medicine type articles on wikipedia. If you have any questions about working on this article please let me know. Particularly it would be good to direct you to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS at this stage. Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help and links to the pages. We were wondering if you had any suggestions that would make our page flow better/be easier for the general reader etc.? Kind regards, oral health editors Ebd2015 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer of help/advice for student editors of this page 

message: Hi all. I had a friend who isn't in the dental field read over this and they said that although it wasn't an easy concept to understand they mostly understood what was being said and could follow it enough to have a basic understanding. Most of the words they didn't understand were already in hyperlinks or had been explained previously and they'd forgotten. Talkteeth (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats great talkteeth, I will get a friend to do this as well. This will help us to gain an insight into whether our page is supplying information in appropriate language in order to be easily understood. Moc24 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Talkteeth, I've had a few people do the same and its essentially the same feedback you received, i.e- if you want to understand the concept then its acting as a good page for that. I think it is going in the right direction for a Wikipedia page Ebd2015 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Over Page 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion