Talk:Diastema

Discussion in article should be edited or removed
The introduction includes:

"Diastema is sometimes caused or exacerbated by tongue thrusting or the pulling action of a labial frenulum (the tissue around the lip), which can push the teeth apart. Actually, a frenum does not pull the tissue. Rather, it causes a high mucosal attachment and less attached keratinized tissue which is more prone to recession."

The sentences in italics may be correct but I don't know enough to determine whether the descriptions are technically accurate.

In any event, discussion does not belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.82 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Growing list
In the article text, "Some well-known people noted for having diastema include..." is followed by a lengthy and ever-growing list of names. At this point it looks like most of these are supported by the references at the end of the page, but I think we should keep an eye on this to prevent it becoming an indiscriminate list. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Invisalign
This private company's specific name is listed. Shouldn't, for the sake of neutrality, it be listed at something like "plastic brace's substitute" or some such? I know nothing of dentistry but it feels weird having a single company's product listed among the fixes. Surely there are other private companies that do the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.47 (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mammals
Many species of mammals have diastemata as a normal feature, most commonly between the incisors and molars.

I think there should be a separate article about that. Especially about the function of the mammal diastema. Many plant eaters like most ungulates (except swine), hares and rodents have a diastema, mostly along with long, pointed nasal bones. I am so much interested in that because I wonder why the extinct Macrauchenia didn't have one and also why it only had a rudimentary nasal bone.80.141.17.186 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Without opposition, there is consensus that diastema as used in dentistry is the primary topic. Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

– I believe Diastema in the dental/anatomical sense should be the primary topic, rather than a subtopic of a disambiguation page. There are at least two other uses (a genus of moth and genus of flower), newly revised at Diastema (disambiguation). However, a Google Scholar search for Diastema Moth, Diastema Gesneriaceae, and Diastema flower yields approx 292, 78, and 968 hits, respectively, while a search for simply Diastema yields approx. 34,000 results, and the vast majority of titles on at least the first 10 pages refer to teeth, and Diastema dental yields 13,900 results. Diastema (dentistry) has over 100 incoming wiki links while the other two have less than 10 total incoming links I've already gone WP:BOLD and moved "Diastema" to Diastema (disambiguation) Relisted  Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Diastema (dentistry) → Diastema
 * Diastema → Diastema (disambiguation)
 * Comment: I reverted the move of Diastema to Diastema (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME pending the result of this discussion. Also, I have updated this move request to include the move that I reverted (moving Diastema to Diastema (disambiguation)). Steel1943  (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree that dentistry is the primary topic for this term in this case. All the first page of PubMed hits were about orthodontics. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support both. My first reaction was even, do we need the DAB at all? But with two genuine incoming links I guess Diastema (plant) won't remain a redlink forever. I note the bold move of the DAB has been reverted, which seems a complete waste of time to me, but it's easily redone. If the proposer had done the bold move first and then raised a single move request, I guess there would have been no problem. Andrewa (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disputed content on diastema
you removed content on diastema in this edit:. I don't have much experience of writing DAB pages, but the guideline you cited (MOS:DABMENTION) does not seem to support your rationale as given in your edit summary.

- Where should these other meanings of diastema go?

- The difference between diastema in terms of (human) dentistry is that it refers almost always to a gap between the upper central incisors. In zoology, diastema means a gap between teeth of dissimilar types, i.e. between the molars and the incisors, as occurs in grass-eating animals or rodents. Therefore, the extra definition is not redundant because it is different meaning of the term. That is why I included 2 entries about teeth. Lesion ( talk ) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have also mentioned WP:DABNOT, (see also the full WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB). The purpose of a dab page is to help users quickly find the content most likely to match their search term. Hence, an entry that has multiple navigable links isn't helpful, because it is not clear which of the links has pertinent information (it may be all or none), and none of the entries you added mentioned the term diastema, (save the frog, but see WP:PTM). A place to add alternative definitions would be in Wiktionary, which is linked at the top of the dab page. Mere instance of a word in an article may not necessitate dab listing, but should future articles or redirects titled Diastema (zoology) or Diastema (pathology) be created, then they would be relevant to include on the dab page. Diastema in the zoological sense is briefly mentioned on Diastema (dentistry), and should the zoological content be split and expanded (which I totally support), then both should be on the DAB page. I appreciate this discussion, it also weighs in on the above discussion about what the primary topic should be.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved some of the deleted definitions to wiktionary. Do not understand why the plant is listed on the DAB (no page exists) but the frog is not (page exists). Lesion  ( talk ) 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. diastema (human dentistry sense) and diastema (dental anatomy in other species sense), I think this could be dealt with easily on the same page... but don't really mind if they are split or not. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Diastema is only between first incisors
Diastema is only between first incisors - both mandible and maxilla. Other gaps between teeth are called "tremata" in Latin. You can find it in every good stomatological book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AE9:21C:4A00:A54C:E636:27F2:BDFA (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in zoology, a diastema is typically the gap between incisors and premolars/molars in many herbivores and rodents. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Famous singers list additions
Should Hayley Williams be included on the list of famous people? Dan18-12-96 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)