Talk:Crown (dental restoration)/Archive 1

Understandability
The language needs to be simplified in this article. There are too many needless words. The sentences are long and sometimes confusing without adding to the information. At times, it reads like a text written by an economist or an accountant (many references to marginal this or that, etc.). Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for popular use. Technical, specialized language (from dentistry or other disciplines) is OK as long as it does not interfere with the information the layperson is looking for.

I don't entirely understand what's going on in the article, so I had some trouble effectively editing it. I took out one sentence:
 * Contamination by saliva and blood may lead to discolouration and inhibition of dentine bonding systems used to prevent microleakage.

because I altered the sentences preceding it, and I didn't understand it well enough to determine whether it made sense with my revisions. If anyone knows what the original author meant with the above, please feel free to add it back in a (hopefully) more readable manner.

The same applies to the "Process" section. I don't understand the process, so I can't edit the section too well. Still, it needs work; if you understand the section, please edit it! Starwiz 23:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * WRT the sentence about "Contamination by saliva..." - anyone who's been to the dentist knows that they try their best to keep the area where they fix a cavity as dry as possible. They use gauze, swabs, and air.  If you get moisture between the tooth and the filling, or crown, or anything really, it won't hold as well.  If you ever look at super-glue, or any glue that's not designed for kindergarten, the instructions will say "clean off the surfaces before applying the glue."  I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the article, but I hope at least I explained it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.243.228 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was cited on Slashdot as an example of a Wikipedia entry that a layman can't understand.


 * I just read it myself and I can't understand it. It looks like a CME course for dentists.


 * I think you should print this out and show it to your girlfriend, or your brother-in-law, or somebody who doesn't have any special knowledge of dentistry, and see if they can understand it -- ask them to explain it back to you in their own words. Keep simplifying it until they can pass that test. Nbauman 06:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this certainly needs to be fixed. - Dozenist talk  15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His examples are taken out of context. PFM's and FGC's are only abbreviated after being explained in full.  If I take senetences out of context from even featured articles no one will understand those either:


 * ''"Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.


 * Wow...this sentence from the Barack Obama article doesn't make any sense to me...


 * A 2005 sex chromosome spindlin DNA sequence study confirmed affinities with the genus Nestor'', which contains the Kākā and the Kea.


 * Hmm...this sentence from Kakapo has got to go...


 * ''The former prevents direct code execution absolutely, while the latter makes so-called return-to-libc (ret2libc) attacks difficult to exploit, relying on luck to succeed, but doesn't prevent variables and pointers overwriting.


 * Wow...I think this PaX article, together with Obama and Kakapo, should be de-featured because I have no clue what these out of context sentence means, and I'm too lazy to click on the wikilinks that are there for this purpose.


 * This complaint is frivilous.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I went to the dentist today. He told me that crowns would not be necessary to fix my damaged teeth. Since I had no idea what crowns were, I came here to look it up. I found the article very informative and didn't have any problem understanding it. Sure, I had to look up a few hyperlinks for such things as "biologic width", but that's to be expected with some such specialized terms.


 * As for the "notability" tag, this article is specialized, IMO, so doesn't warrant such a tag.


 * User:jds 5:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

lifetime
i'm in the uk and the figures i've heared are more like 20 years does anyone know where the 10 year figure came from and what it includes? Plugwash 23:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should really be a citation for this. --Delirium 20:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a crown for over twenty years, so I don't think the 10 years is correct.Rt66lt 02:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree a citation is needed, but certainly the number will be an average. I have seen crowns that have lasted less than 3 years. - Dozenist  talk  03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is possiblly true is that there are sufficiant badly fitted crowns to drag down the average significantly. I suspect it varys a lot by country too. Plugwash 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * At our lab, we guarantee crowns for five years. If the impression is good and the crown is crafted well and the fit is good with no major pressure from the opposing teeth, then there's no reason that a crown won't last practically forever.--SweetNeo85 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone found good research on longevity of the different materials? I read somewhere the annual failure rate for CEREC is 1.1, gold 1.2, something like that...can't find it again for the life of me!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.243.228 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

metal pins
i'm sure i've heared that sometimes metal pins are placed in the root or even down into the jaw to support a crown. Is this true and if so should it be mentioned here? Plugwash 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Metal pins are not usually placed for the crown itself. Metal pins are not placed into the jaw for a crown, unless you are referring to the screws used in implants.  Metal pins are sometimes used for better retention in amalgam fillings or the build-up of a tooth.  In that case, build-ups usually precede the placement of a crown, but the pin itself was not placed for the crown. I believe I have not heard of a pin being placed solely for a crown. - Dozenist  talk  20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just rember my mum telling me there was a pin of some sort involved when she had a crown done a long time ago. As you say it may have been part of a build up or similar rather than directly supporting the crown (i'm no expert). I also noticed dental implant links here and this page should probablly link back there. Some info on this "build up" process would be nice too. Plugwash 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From my own currently ongoing crown installation, it seems like what is called "shoulder" in the article indeed has a part which somehow goes into the tooth, making it kinda lika a "pin". I could be wrong, but that how it looked. :) There was definitely a screw involved when I (in the same tooth) previously had a composite buildup made. (That doctor showed me and explained everything he did. I liked that. :-) ) --Regebro 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious from the initial question that the questioner is a lay person and should not be required to refer to dental materials with their most proceise terms. What you are probably referring to is a pin that goes into the root canal of an endodontically treated tooth in order to give better retention to the crown. This pin, referred to as a post is then connected to a core material to replace lost tooth structure and give the prosthetic crown something to grab on to. This post/core system can either be of the uniform prefabricated sort or of a personalized sort, the latter of which is a one-piece cast metal (usually gold) post and core that is cemented into the root canal upon which a crown is then cemented. DRosenbach (Talk 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos
While attempting to avoid criticism of the crowns in the photos, is there anyone who has pictures of maybe, more aesthetically pleasing crowns? Even a gold crown can look better than that lump that is in there. Same for the temporary. I'll try and find some myself, but seriously those are pretty bad. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it looked better now than last week, but yet there are no change... I could provide a picture of what I guess is a "shoulder", that I got installed today. :) --Regebro 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a bunch of photos of a 5-unit against a single crown that I've recently inserted, so I'll put them in where applicable. I agree...that picture is pretty bad and a layman can hardly tell what he's looking at. The occlusion is all flat, too! DRosenbach (Talk 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) none of those photos looked appaeling! cant you get better pictures ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary divalerio (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - discussion
Please see this page for the discussion. Extranet (Talk 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussion on the Talk:bridge (dentistry), it has been agreed upon to merge crown (dentistry) and bridge (dentistry) and title the new article Fixed prosthodontics. However, I had already set up the new article page with a sentence, and thus, cannot move or merge to this article, as wiki won't let me overwrite. Do you know how I can get this accomplished? DRosenbach (Talk 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:RM. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About the move, about which I completely disagree, may be eventually fixed later on. When this article becomes fully detailed, there may then be seen that the information will be enough to split up into an article about crowns and an article about bridges.  Since both articles were not fully developed, merging them together for now may be "okay". - Dozenist  talk  00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat. Though before the merger neither article was detailed enough to be a separate entity Bouncingmolar 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I do not at all understand how someone can assert that a bridge should have its own article. A bridge is merely a bunch of attached crowns, and they share absolutely all of the identical features except for treatment planning and some small concepts such as parallelism, which together can be put into a paragraph of two on the crown page. For those of who who disagree, please please please explain yourselves. DRosenbach (Talk 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be completely honest, your comments display a lack of understanding of bridging and all of its many forms. Consider all of the differences between crowns and bridges - design (of which there are several different types including but not limited to several resin bonded designs, cantilevering, fixed movable, implant supported and all of its separate design considerations, considerations for Law of Spans, Ante's Law - even though it's not used), aesthetics (including soft tissue considerations such as ridge contour and size, pontic shape - bullet, modified ridge lap, ridge lap, ovate, etc), periodontal considerations (periodontal support and again, Ante's law even though it is not used - see Ong et al) and occlusal considerations (guidance - group function or canine guidance, metal or ceramic coverage) and a few others that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I think it warrants its own article, but for the moment for the sake of simplicity it is better the way it is now until someone writes more detail on bridging.
 * Also I don't agree with 1) the title of the article because it neglects indirect intracoronal restorations and 2) the path that you have taken the article down following on from the title. I think a better route to take it down is comparing direct vs. indirect restorations, it is conceptually much easier to understand and no restoration type gets left out.
 * Anyway, my that's just my tuppence ha'penny. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 13:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's merged already, so let's talk below. DRosenbach (Talk 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ARGH
What happened? DRosenbach I disagree with the changes made in this edit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crown_and_bridge&diff=115617822&oldid=115521953. I do however like some of the other changes you have made. I dislike the changes because the link has been removed from the introduction to indirect restorations, and I think that the old subheadings were more concise... for example why was the advantages title removed when the disadvantages was retained. I think that the changes made have made the tone of the article more informal, instead of encylopedic, and the definition is more vague. I havn't reverted it though because I would like some consensus first(Bouncingmolar 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC))


 * The article prior to me getting to it was a sad, sad exhibit of mish-mosh categorization and information, thus leading the reader to total confusion. Facts were laid out almost incomprehensibly and items were listed as though only a moment's thought were put into them being there.  To argue that I am messing up categories that you liked is futile, as the article was barely an article, in my opinion.  If you have an opinion, this is not my article, so let's discuss it and find a concensus on how to present this information.  But to claim that I am tinkering with things and erroneously reorganizing...I assert that reorganizing when there was little to no organization is actually organizing. DRosenbach (Talk 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See my post above - Ante's Rule is no longer necessary in case selection - Ong et al proved that 11% (if I remember correctly) remaining periodontal support on two abutment teeth was enough to support a bridge. Many people still use it as a guide (such as myself).  A more important rule is the Law of Spans.  Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yes unfortunately a large majority of articles on wikipedia, particularly the dentistry section are in this mish mosh state.. Thats the whole point of us editing it.... you should have seen it before i changed it... changes by me. But thats not the point. Try not to feel that I am claiming you are 'tinkering eroneiously'. I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm all for progress.


 * I'd like to remind you that not too long ago there were no categories at all and yes the finer details of the new ones were not adequately expanded, which is why i requested this, much of which has benifited from your much needed contributions. Bouncingmolar 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

These are my recommendations: 1. Change the writing style to a factual one. The article is currently written in discussion format. eg. 'An important thing to keep in mind' and 'That being said, things are not always clear cut' and 'All who are familiar with dentistry will agree that the most... ' are some examples of a narrative format. I am finding it hard to describe what I mean here, so if this is confusing let me know.

2. introduction does not adequately explain crown and bridge. however I will try and fix that now.

3. Advantages and disadvantages needs to be re organised (sorry). I'm afraid i prefer the old format. and as i alerted you through your talk page, I have not reverted it because i really think that this can be resolved through a consensus. Hense the current discussion..
 * please compare the layout of the old advantages and disadvantages section: old version.
 * In my opinion this is a good structure. You can easily see in the index that the advantages are broken up into: 1. strength 2. appearance 3. longevity, all which are discussed. Then you can see that the disadvantages section is broken up into 1. cost and 2. preparation which are discussed to explain how they can be disadvantages..  This is a more logical order compared to now, where each advantage and disadvantage is spread out over the article before and after the adv/disdv section and only briefly mentioned in the adv/dadv. Bouncingmolar 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-merge discussion about this article and where we want to take it
OK...other than a few things like the steps of impression-taking, and yes, pontic design, this is a much more comprehensive article than either of them were before. Please don't complain to me about how you think they should be two articles because bridges are fundamentally different than crowns. If you think all of things merit a new article, you should have added them into the bridge article yourself. I was the one who requested a merge not because of the differences but because of the similarities between crowns and bridges. And it's not that bridges are a different entity than crowns -- on the contrary, they are the same thing. But because they are spans, they have rules of spans. Because they restore multiple teeth at the same time, they incorporate issues of occlusal schemes. Should I be performing a full mouth reconstruction with single units, I would also have to take into account occlusal schemes. I didn't put in anything about pontic design because I felt that it would much better explained with photos or sketches, and I don't have any of those right now. Instead of being condescending and all authoritative, you should be happy that there is an innitiative here to make this thing more comprehensive. If it ends up in two articles, then so be it...my point was to organize better, not to make it so that Wikipedia has only one article. Direct vs. indirect, in my opinion, is a silly method for article splitting because a) patients have never even heard of these terms, so they can't look them up and won't know what they are when they get there if they do, and b) dentists don't refer to restorations by these monikers as a means of necessarily organizing them. Yes, it is a term and a category, and yes, things will naturally fall into a category, but the idea behind the merge was to properly outline and discuss fixed prosthodontics. You were the one, Dr-G, who decided that this was an improper term, and that we should go with "crown and bridge." I feel like you're here to attack and supervise others while now contributing yourself. If you're so upset, where is your overhaul? It could have started two weeks ago and be done by now. DRosenbach (Talk 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you are taking the critisisms too personally, noone is here to 'attack you' it is all part of the process of editing wikipedia. please don't take offense. We are all working to achieve the same goal and that is to have a working and easily readable article which retains the style of wikipedia articles. again your contributions have added much needed information. Critisism and discussion is the only way to gain direction and improve from here :) (Bouncingmolar 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Other pages to be aware of: There is a Fixed prosthodontics/indirect restorations page created from your original request before the merge (where we couln't overwrite it with this page) There is also an inlays and onlays page. Also not so relevant there is a dental restoration page and a dental materials page. and just to clarify i am not saying that they are up to standard but they are good starting points for further development. I think there are many similaritys between crown and bridge but inlay and onlay compared to crown and bridge I think may need to be seperated at some stage :)Bouncingmolar 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because bridges can be made of inlays, onlays and crowns, the easiest thing is to have all the information in the same place. Why does there need to be 8 different articles for every possible way of classifying the dental restorations.  There are not 8 different articles in Brittanica?  The point of Wikipedia is not to make a page for any and every entity on the planet.  We don't have a separate article for a rock, a stone and a boulder, and if we do, they should be merged.  I think this is being way overmanaged.  If there is a bridge article, will it just say "please refer to the crown article for everything other than the few things that apply only to crowns, or will it repeat all of the information.  There is a reason why this stuff is referred to as "crown and bridge." I had already incorporated the inlay/onlay into this article before I realized there was a separate article on them, and when I viewed it, it was very, very bad, so I redirected it to here.  I suppose we can move all of the direct information about them back there and have links in every paragraph.  What I'm saying is that Dr. G waits for me to fix things and then complains, when he could have fixed him himself before I got here. DRosenbach (Talk 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that people who criticize are a very important part of the process. We have to be aware that wikipedians play different roles, some are better at suggestions rather than introducing content. Just because one person is more comfortable adding heaps of information doesn't discount others suggestions. Discussion is not overmanagement, this is the only way to go unless you want to set up your own encyclopedia.
 * I listed 2 articles which makes 3 total relevant articles to fixed prosthodontics. not 8. I also listed 2 others which i even said were not as relevant, they were just fyi. If you think that there is no justification for separating crown/bridge from inlay/onlay/veneers then thats fine, just say it the way it is. However, in my opinion a Parent article: fixed restorations/fixed prosthodontics with child articles crown/bridge + inlay/onlay/veneer does not seem so complex. Bouncingmolar 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DRosenbach - all I can provide is guidance at the moment, for several reasons, which is what I do on the talk pages. Occasionally I change things that I feel are blatantly wrong.  If I seriously disagreed with anything that you had done, I would have changed it by now.  I feel that I have caused offense unneccessarily and I apologise for that, however remember that you criticised all previous contributors to this subject and unilaterally requested a merge.  Initially I was in favour, but then I dug out the old Rosensteil and remembered how complicated bridging can actually be.  Also, remember that my suggestion for a title was Fixed Prosthodontics, to encompass all restorations therein.  I would ask that you remember that you are discussing matters with colleagues and that there are other people here with knowledge of the subject matter, please accept criticism in the way that it is meant - in the spirit of the desire to acheive consensus, and to maintain the integrity of the dentistry WikiProject.  I commend you for your efforts so far. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think clearly this article needs to split up now and be a redirect. The extensive amount of information on crowns is overwhelming and should be placed in its own article. Bridges should have its own article too. The article may be smaller, but, with the current information the article would not be a stub. This is my proposal (I believe it is very similar to Bouncingmolar's idea):
 * 1) Create a fixed prosthodontics article, 2) Have separate sections for crowns and bridges with links to their main articles, 3) In the fixed prosth article, have a "Principles" section which explains the principles relating to both crowns and bridges.

I hope this way we can: fix the sprawling mess of this article and begin to organize the loose conglomeration of dental articles. - Dozenist talk  15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I think Drosenbach has actually already started this process by moving inlay and only info to its appropriate page, which is good. It still needs to be removed from the C&B page. Just to confirm I did suggest a parent 'fixed prosthodontics page and daughter: crown; bridge ; inlays and onlays. materials and their properties should be listed in fixed prosthodontics page. each daughter article should however breifly mention materials but ultimately refer to the parent article and to each other. Yes the principles are the same for all, but there are micro differences ie external taper and internal taper, so i think they still deserve mention in each. What to do with 'crown and bridge' though? Crown and bridge can refer to fixed prosthodontics.
 * Long term goal:
 * Fixed prosthodontics (currently indirect restorations perhaps it should be renamed to 'fixed prosthodontics').
 * Crown
 * Bridge
 * Inlays, onlays and veneers
 * However I think that the fixed prosthodontics page needs to be developed more (partial merge from this one, before crown and bridge is separated. I suggest an intermediate stage where there is a fixed prosthodontics with daughter crown and bridge, inlays and onlays(with veneers as well).
 * sorry I haven't been very helpful lately, I'm in the middle of moving house among other things. I'm temporarily on dial up.
 * -Bouncingmolar 11:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - this has worked extremely well with "Tooth" and all of its progeny articles. Not even in a print encyclopaedia are articles stand-alone or designed to be, and we have the advantage of being able to link to other articles.  Let's use it - it contributes to a greater understanding and organisation of the subject IMHO. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The move has been done. Now, any information ya'll want to add to the articles would work well. - Dozenist talk  12:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slumping and Deformation
The terms "sagging" and "distortion" are not preferred by ceramists. "Slumping" and "deformation" are more industry-correct terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.84.147.134 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 October 2007

Advantages and disadvantages
I have removed the tendentious language from the cost-benefit section, and tightened up the language. But it remains a bit unconvincing: the example is not so much about different priorities (e.g. aesthetics vs. durability vs. mastication vs. sensation) but the rather banal question of whether one can afford the best treatment. The previous text hinted that the dentist was being dishonest in suggesting that bridges were no longer as desirable once implants were available, but that sounds quite reasonable to me as a layman. PJTraill (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I realise that I personally would very much appreciate information about any effects different materials, techniques or other options may have on the sense of taste. Can anyone contribute any useful information? PJTraill (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The graph showing the advantage of using crows in preventing Fractures of endodontically treated teeth, is nowhere to be found in the cited reference. I’m afraid this might be a gross case of fraud where credible academic publications are misquoted to support a view or a service provided by a practicing professional. Care must be taken when published references are used! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.227.115 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism 2
medical side-effects, irregular hearth beat, blood clotting issues and even phantom pain etc. this page looks more like a promotional page for dental replacements. Markthemac (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the preceding comment. This page was a primary source of information for me in making a decision to get some crowns. Yet, why was there no mention on this page about how bad it hurts to eat and drink, now several days after getting a crown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.4.62 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Zeno
I removed the section on "Zeno" crowns because it appeared to be at best a copyvio of a website, and at worst, advertising for a non-notable process. WP:NOTADVERTISING If anyone would like to add an encyclopedic version of this section and assert its notability, feel free to do so, but the current section was vague and worthless to someone comparing types of crowns. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA
I just nommed this article for GA, I believe it is worthy. Washburn mav (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Crown (dental restoration)/GA1

All-ceramic restorations
This section is an opinion/advertisement claiming that gold crowns are better than anything else. On the other hand, in the CEREC section, we have references for longevity, loads, wear patterns...if gold is so good, then why doesn't somebody post numbers from actual research rather than anecdotal evidence and opinions? I have yet to see any stats on longevity of gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.4.62 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lava Crowns
I'd like to see at least a passing mention of Lava crowns, which are what I have in my mouth, because when I wanted more information on them, Wikipedia was the first place I came, and I couldn't figure out how what I have fits in to the article as a whole. I finally found information here but I don't really know enough about dentistry or Wikipeda to add to the article itself. The link has lots of PDF files with technical specifications but I don't really know how to interpret them. SarahAnnAlien (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cost of crowns in the US deletion
Althought the topic of cost in the US is probably of interest to many people, the cost is not a relevant fact to this article. I have deleted this section for the following reasons: 1. There are many variables which will effect cost which should not be attempted to be listed in this article. 2. this may suprise you but the US is not the only country in the world, and I would hate to see this article listing the prices in every single currency and every variation of crown fabrication in the world. There are probably other reasons but i think those to are enough unless anyone want to oppose this deletionBouncingmolar (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition
I hope you like the newly formatted definition of a crown. It explains what a crown is more concisely and may be more adaptable for some of the direct methods of crowning teeth. I also removed some of the double ups such as listing firing and using gold as separate entities when gold is fired. No offence but I also removed the statement: " nice professional looking real tooth" which may be true but not specific to crowning. a direct filling or a natural tooth could look "nice"/"professional(?) real? Bouncingmolar (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Aahh I wasn't logged in....

Article Review sept 09
I have read this article and I propose the following changes Bouncingmolar (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * reword the Definition it is waffly and doesn't make sense
 * remove irrelevant pictures: The case presentation of a composite violating biological width is irrelevant to this article; crown lengthening is relevant to crown lengthening article.
 * Add a picture of a crown showing a view of the fitting surface and the outside so people know what it is.
 * All of the brand name crown fabricating companies should only be mentioned in passing; Cad/cam techniques (cerec) should not have a heading of their own as that is an advertisement and it should be listed under a cadcam technique. Otherwise we have to list every single type of cad/cam crown.

Criticism moved from article to talk page
The following was originally posted with this edit under this bar graph within the article. I've moved the comment to the talk page for discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Academic FRAUD and fabrication of data! This data is completely fabricated, and the academic citation includes no such graph! This is clear example why Wikipedia should be used with care. It is interesting that this fraud was detected 2years ago and stated in the discussion section, under criticism of this article and has been ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.103.106 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2010