Talk:Abfraction

Rating
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)

I have no specific citation, but I will post it here as soon as I find it. However, Dr. Peter Dawson, who has advocated the occlusal etiology of non-carious cervical lesions for decades, has been convinced by studies (citation upcoming) that show that with dentifrice, these lesions occur, and without dentifrice, they do not occur. Jedaniel (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am an Oral Health Student from LaTrobe University, who is part of a group that has been tasked with providing evidence based information for this specific Wiki page. Our aim is to provide information that is accurate and useful to the general public using literature that is Evidence Based. We are doing this as part of an assessment and will be marked on our updates and the literature/information we provide. Please communicate with myself or the others as they comment should you have any questions regarding this. Thank you. Talkteeth (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am another of the Oral Health Students who will be contributing to this page over the next few months (all with the aim of keeping it evidence based and up-to-date). During my time editing I would be very grateful if you could speak to me, or another oral health students if you wish to have changes made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebd2015 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Ebd2015 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there everyone I am another member of the La Trobe Oral Health students that will be working on this page. I am very much looking forward to contributing to the information shared here. Please do no hesitate to contact us with any questions concerning our progress or if you would like to see anything amended. We are all very passionate about evidence based practice and broadening the knowledge of people around us, especially in the field of dentistry.Misshygiene (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Misshygiene

Hi everyone, I am also one of the La Trobe Oral Health Students working on this page! We are editing this page to help ensure that the knowlegde provided to the wider community is correct and up to date. Please feel free to ask any questions or pass on any suggestions you may have regarding our edits! Moc24 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, as there is limited information on the page I have devised a brief list on what could be added to improve the Abfraction page. These are 'potential' titles but through discussion we should be able to make a more agreed upon list. I have made the list very brief as it would be easier to understand for the 'layperson'. Your input is greatly appreciated. -Introduction; define abfraction and state its general cause, specify that it is theoretical in nature and different to dental abrasion, attrition etc. -Lesion development; place in theories of occlusal forces and lowered ph./its importance in progression. -Lesion characteristics; wedge shaped, at cervical area etc. -Abfraction vs. Tooth-brush abrasion; I found a statement that all abfraction lesions are found above the CEJ whereas tooth-brush abrasion is not (B. HUR, H. C. K., J‐K. PARK, A. VERSLUIS. (2011). Characteristics of non-carious cervical lesions - an ex vivo study using micro computed tomography. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation(38), 6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02172.x). -Management of lesions; observation, temporary restorations etc. -Conclusions; I think this would be best finalized once our changes have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebd2015 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Ebd2015 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Moc24 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Moc24== Editing Page (OH students) ==

Summary

What is Abfraction- Moc24

Causes- Talkteeth

Clinical Features- Ebd2015

Treatment Options- Misshygiene

Controversial Concept- GlenHoltcampOHT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moc24 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)Talkteeth (talk)


 * 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)Additionally- my references are not going in correctly at the moment, some are being repeated and I am working in resolving this issue, thanksEbd2015 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ebd2015, I really like the diagram you've drawn. Its great that its original work as we can use it here! Looks great and is very clear. I think we need to source more clinical photos for this page though!Moc24 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I have just uploaded an image I created under the clinical features sectionEbd2015 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Hello Ebd2015, I'm not sure how to change the references either. Mine are repeated so thought to leave it for now until near the end. Although in some ways it won't matter but will see what we can do at the end. Talkteeth (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.96.201 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Hi Glen holtkamp oht, I like this area but wondering if we need a little more to fully explain this area? Do we need to add more reasons that people state these lesions could be? For example those opposing it state they are simply abrasion? or other such combinations and therefore don't agree with this distinct classification? What do you think? Talkteeth (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Talkteeth

What is Abfraction?
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)
 * 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)Sorry, that comment was from me (wasn't logged in) Ebd2015 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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) Hi, Yes I was reading that and wondering where that had come from and was trying to work it out in the edit's page. I have read it over and it does seem to fit there - however it also fits under your section too. Happy to leave it there at this stage but will re-read it and get back to you if perhaps it needs to go back in your section. Talkteeth (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Talkteeth
 * 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)
 * Sounds good.Talkteeth (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Talkteeth


 * 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)

Thanks for that. Just read over that part and it sounds good. Think you just missed a couple of words to take out and it was doubled up so I have removed them for you as it was saying however some studies a couple of times. Otherwise sounds good Talkteeth (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Talkteeth Yes I agree! Looks great and reads a lot betterMoc24 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Yes I just did a re-read of that and it is much better now, good job on the editingMisshygiene (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Hey, ive read over the bit which was changed and its flowing really well now, good job! Ebd2015 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

--- Hi, from Russia. What is Abfraction? This is electro-erosion by Nylon brushes, especially look like "Colgate360". Zgrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Toothwear caused by toothbrushes is termed abrasion not abfraction. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Controversy
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)


 * 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)

Treatment Options
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Hi Misshygiene, just wondering as we discussed the other day whether we need to add a line in now that changing the bite isn't something done regularly anymore? AFter the lecture we had the other day? Talkteeth (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Talkteeth


 * 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)Talkteeth (talk)


 * 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)

Hi Moc24, I really am unsure how to get this page re-evaluated. If you have time and are happy to research this that would be great thanks! Talkteeth (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Talkteeth

Hi All. So I have looked into getting this page re evaluated, still having a bit of trouble with the process of that. I am going to review the treatment options (re: changing the bite) during this week after discussion on Wednesday. I think it needs a little bit more of a tidy up to prevent people reading this and self diagnosing their treatments. Misshygiene (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

OK so after discussion it was decided to leave changing the bite as it is still deemed a clinical option, unfortunately the page can not be reviewed but I think that it is great that we tried. Misshygiene (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

Offer of help/advice for student editors of this page
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)
 * 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)

Reading Over Page
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)Talkteeth
 * 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)
 * 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)

Hi talkteeth and Ebd2015, I have had some friends of mine read over the page. They are al quite happy with the page, seemed to grasp the concept well. They both said it reads like a normal wiki page. This seems to be positive feedback!Moc24 (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about reading over the page I believe it would be a good idea to have 'abfraction' re-evaluated on the quality scale. As I haven't done this before does anyone have guidance to offer on where to place it? I was thinking somewhere around a 'B' grade however not quite a 'GA'. Thoughts anyone? Ebd2015 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree Ebd2015. I believe that we should ensure we are 100% happy with the page then get it re-evaluated!Moc24 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This page delineates article assessment: WikiProject Medicine/Assessment.

A rating of GA requires an internal peer review process by other editors. For more information see here:. Hope this helps. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Thank you for this information. It is very helpful! Talkteeth (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Talkteeth

I too have had someone from a non dental field read this page today as we are at the end and quite happy with it. The overall response was that they found it very informative and thought that the pictures were great and that they really helped explain abfraction. Our language was easy to understand and easy to interpret. Positive feedback and I think we should all be really happy about the outcome! Misshygiene (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)