Talk:Impacted wisdom teeth

Stop or prevent wisdom teeth from growing
Surely there's a way to do this. But dentists associations aren't interested in any developments that reduce their stock market gambling incomes from the future repeat surgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

 * Constructive comment-- Excuse me for criticizing without doing any work here, but I feel that the lead image of the rotating CT is not ideal for the lead... a stationary plain x-ray would be better imo as not everyone will recognize what is being shown in the gif... especially with it rotating upside down etc... Lesion  ( talk ) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback. I've shown it to a bunch of people because it's not typical.  So far, all the feedback has been quite positive.  Most say that it makes more sense to them than the 2D image (plus I think it looks really cool).  I'm going to leave it up for a while, but I'll ask for more feedback on it from laypeople.  Ian Furst (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I redid the GIF using video editing software to zoom in on the tooth and limiting the rotation. I think it'll be less confusing. Ian Furst (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Screening
We have one ref in the screening section. Are there more opinions as this appears to be just that of the author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can get references from maxfac textbooks which state screening is typically done in adolescents. Because of the debate about prophylactic removal, I was reluctant to include those generic refs.  The one cited, was a conclusion drawn after reviewing evidence for/against (it was just a regular review).  I'll take another look for others where the conclusion is based on systematic review but it may not be out there.  I'll also contact Dodson (he's one of the recognized experts - I've emailed him about this article repeatedly to get help) and see if he knows of other recommendations.  BTW, Hildabast was also involved in the wording of the section on the prophylactic removal controversy. Ian Furst (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost forgot.... and the video? Ian Furst (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Liking the video a lot. Not seen that kind of thing done before but I think it is a great addition to articles. Lesion  ( talk ) 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if people would like or hate it but I thought the article would work with it because of all the visuals. Blueraspberry but up an idea page about them at WP:Wiki Loves Health Videos. Ian Furst (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * added the GA nomination template to this yesterday but don't see it on the GA nominations page. Any ideas? Ian Furst (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC

I've gone through pubmed and I can't find any other articles that deal specifically with screening recommendations. I've emailed Dodson to see if he knows of other evidence-based recommendations. Ian Furst (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I contacted Dr Dodson again at U Washington - he's the expert in the field. It's straight forward to find various quotes about when to start screening from textbooks but all are based on author opinion. To the best of his knowledge, he's the only one looking at the research from the perspective of active surveillence/screening on this topic.  I'm reluctant to give equal weight to textbook quotes (and I don't expect them to be substantially different) when we have a review paper specifically addressing the topic.  What do you think? Ian Furst (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we might be able to improve this article even more before evaluating it
Dear Dr. Furst,

I wonder if, before we evaluate this article against the GA criteria, it might be possible we might make it even better.

Could we do the following?:


 * I know that many of us are doctors or dentists, not professional writers or editors. Still, perhaps we could copy edit the article for style. Please see the "Style" section, about halfway down this page. Please see also the first half of this essay by User:Tony1.
 * Perhaps we could also copy edit the article for grammar.

Could we also try to do some of the following more-minor items?: (Note that these items may not be required whatsoever for the article to achieve GA status.)


 * Perhaps we could make the article more understandable for patients and first-semester dental students. Make technical articles understandable has some excellent advice on how to do this, and is well worth looking at.
 * And, as User:Revent suggested on IRC, perhaps we could make the lead section should be made less detailed. It can still cover all the same topics that it does now, but it still could be condensed more and some information could be removed.

User:Revent also suggested that, in the References section, we could make the page ranges use en dashes. I agree that this is a good idea, although the GA criteria don't require this whatsoever.

I feel that the article is quite useful as it stands already. It taught me all sorts of things about the subject. I especially liked how it discussed the pros and cons of removal. Still, there is no article in the world which couldn't be improved even further.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree some simplification would be useful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. No reply from User:Ian Furst yet. In fact, I noticed that Dr. Furst, the article's creator and GA nominator, hasn't edited since 18 July 2014. Though this isn't the first time he's been away for a month or more. See his edits-per-day graph (a Flash player is required to see this graph). So I expect he'll probably be back eventually. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unforgettableid Summer is extremely busy for me (and more so this year), so I've been taking a little wikibreak for motivation. I'm in it for the long-haul.  I'll look through the article soon.  Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear reviewers: I hope to do the GA review for this article eventually. Please do not review it, and definitely please do not review it before Dr. Furst is back from his wikibreak. Dear Thank you for the update. May I temporarily withdraw your GA nomination? (If so, then after you come back from wikibreak, you can nominate it again.) —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Prophylactic Extraction of Third Molars: A Public Health Hazard
There is one more article, advising against prophylactic extraction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963310/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Common accepted hypothesis that determine eruption is the angle...
This is not a grammatically well-formed construction. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F4EC:BD77:C22B:62FD (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

When do wisdom teeth develop
Scientist Bill, Doc James Below is a quote from Peterson p.139 (the source for the disputed text). Usual time of formation is 18 years old, but the apex remains open and movement continues until age 25. Just because the root is complete, doesn't mean development has finished as eruption is still part of development. I think the older age should be used. "The mandibular third molar is the most commonly impacted tooth. It also presents the greatest surgical challenge and invites the greatest controversy when indications for removal are considered.When the surgeon is determining whether a specific third molar will become impacted and whether it should be removed, he or she needs to have a clear understanding of the development and movement of the third molar between the ages of 7 and 25 years. A number of longitudinal studies have clearly defined the development and eruption pattern of the third molar.4–7 The mandibular third molar tooth germ is usually visible radiographically by age 9 years, and cusp mineralization is completed approximately 2 years later. At age 11 years, the tooth is located within the anterior border of the ramus with its occlusal surface facing almost directly anteriorly. The level of the tooth germ is approximately at the occlusal plane of the erupted dentition. Crown formation is usually complete by age 14 years, and the roots are approximately 50% formed by age 16 years. During this time the body of the mandible grows in length at the expense of resorption of the anterior border of the ramus. As this process occurs the position of the third molar relative to the adjacent teeth changes, with the third molar assuming a position at approximately the root level of the adjacent second molar. The angulation of the crown becomes more horizontal also. Usually the roots are completely formed with an open apex by age 18 years. By age 24 years 95% of all third molars that will erupt have completed their eruption." Ian Furst (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rate of disease in impacted wisdom teeth
I read the article linked in the classification section (see history of my edit), and although the article laid out the classifications of wisdom teeth, the occurrence rates of disease of impacted teeth, broken down by symptomatic and asymptomatic, was absolutely nowhere to be found in the article. This should be removed, or the correct source should be cited. Getav3i32 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)