Talk:Molar (tooth)

Radiograph image
I think that the periapical radiograph used to illustrate this article is misleading as it shows two heavily restored molars and a premolar. Firstly I dont think that an x-ray is really the best illustration, surely a photo could be found... secondly if we are to have an x-ray the molars illustrated need to be unrestored, and in their natural state. Teeth dont naturally have root canal work and fillings you know!. Plus the root canal work that has been done is pretty shonky- note the external resorbtion of the anterior root of the first molar tooth... it needs extraction not inclusion in wikipedia as a fine example of a molar!- Ashley Payne 08:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tangent
Ah, finally a molar article I sink my teeth into... --Ed Poor 20:17 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

So what's the molar of the story? -phma


 * It's no story, it's an entire molarity play - on words --Ed Poor

What is the meaning of "molar" as used in "at a more molar level"?

Tribosphenic molar
A while back, I anonymously created this article, and I think it shoulld be merged here. Ingoolemo  talk 20:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypsodont
In the same vein as above, there is an article for Hypsodont that somebody might want to do something with. JSYK.. - N (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed "roggodent" bit; old vandalism.
Removed "Roggodent: The tooth has a tendency to stay in one place and rot to nothing". The formation appears incorrect (should be -dont, not -dent), the edit was made from an IP address that was, a few minutes earlier, engaged in vandalism, and Google turns up nothing but mirrors of Wikipedia, and nothing whatsoever for the Scholar search, when "roggodent" or "roggodont" are entered, while both turn up works on comparative dental anatomy for terms like "loxodont". grendel|khan 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Platypus baby teeth
The platypus article claims (at least at the moment) that although people thought the teeth of the juvenile platypu,were tribosphenic (with related evolutionary implications), they are not, because they evolved under a separate process. If that is the case, this page should be changed to reflect it. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read the rest of the page, which explains the debate. Either way, the first part should not state it as fact if it is under debate, IMHO.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On classification
I'm confused: are human molars bondont, brachydont, quadrate, or all of the above? I think the morphology needs clarification, i.e. if some molar terms are for shape while others are for structure, it should be made clear. Similarly, captions should clearly list the type illustrated, such as e.g. "Pig molar (an example of a quadrate molar)"--Animalparty-- (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories
According to the article: human teeth are: Quadrate, Bunodont & Brachydont cattle teeth are Hypsodont & Selenodont horse teeth are Hypsodont and Lophodont If this is correct, then teeth obviously can belong to several groups. This being the case, would it not make more sense to put in a line before the various categories (or at least before Quadrate) indicating this?Glevum (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Molar (tooth). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303211122/http://carnegiemnh.net/assets/science/vp/LuoEtAl(2001a).pdf to http://carnegiemnh.net/assets/science/vp/LuoEtAl(2001a).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Which side is the protocone?
I am confused. Immediately under the heading "Morphology" on the left side of the page is a figure captioned "Generalized cusp of a mammalian molar ..." showing "protoconid" on the "labial" side and "paraconid" and "metaconid" on the "lingual" side. But on the right side of the page is a figure captioned "Generalized tribosphenic molar: The protocone is on the lingual (tongue) side, while the anterior paracone and posterior metacone are on the buccal (cheek) side of the jaw)." These are opposite orientations. The text says nothing about the orientation of these features but notes that the suffix "-id" refers to the lower molar. Does this mean that the upper and lower molars are reversed? Or is one of these figures in error? Marty39 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)