Talk:Odontoma

Inconsistency
A reader contact Wikipedia and asked an obvious question about Odontoma

In 2009 one editor added the statement:

22% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas.

to Odontoma your edit

Two years later, an IP added the statement: ''In 2011, 66% of odontogenic tumors are odontomas. University of Louisville School of Dentistry.''

The IP had only two edits ever. I am hoping someone can sort this out.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This primary source (Servato) indicates a frequency of 41.4%.


 * Another Brazilian study (da-Costa) has a frequency of 18.4%.


 * However this large study (Siriwardena) indicates a frequency of 10.1%. Interestingly, Siriwardena states "Although odontoma is said to be the commonest in western countries, our results showed ameloblastoma as the commonest followed by KCOT, and the relative frequencies of different tumors have changed significantly as a result of inclusion of KCOT in the new classification."


 * Meanwhile, this large worldwide study (Avelar) gives a value of 20.1%.


 * This smaller study in Iran found that 26.7% were odontomas.


 * In summary, there is variation in the literature, perhaps partially due to geographical differences. In any case, 66% seems to be an overestimate. Also, be aware that all of these papers are primary sources. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC


 * As highlighted by Axl, there are reliability issues for epidemiologic data regarding this benign, often symptomless tumor, particularly as to its relative frequency as a fraction of all ontogenic tumors (see, for example, 3rd paragraph on page E557 of this editorial).
 * As regards potential MEDRS:
 * I imagine might be a useful MEDRS for an editor working on the specific topic area.
 * Fregnani et al (2002) Odontomas and ameloblastomas: variable prevalences around the world?  (paywalled) might be informative, despite being a bit old.
 * Owosho et al (2013) Odontomas: A review of diagnosis, classification, and challenges  (paywalled) might be a potentially pertinent MEDRS.


 * Personally, I feel there might be case for citing the The global study mentioned by Axl is actually a review and, I think, could be an appropriate MEDRS here directly, if a more recent MEDRS that takes it into consideration can't be found.


 * Editorially, I feel the contradiction should be resolvable simply by shifting the focus away from the fraught question regarding the "fraction of ontogenic tumors". (And I'm also somewhat concerned about weight and perhaps other issues in the following "Guinness Book of Records" paragraph...) 2c, 31.48.175.145 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course - nb this got 25K views in a day on the Mumbai story just now. I hope they made some sort of sense of the opening paragraph, then: "The odontoma is a hamartoma[1] of odontogenic origin."! Outstanding opacity even by WP standards. Thanks.  Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * lol, according to Textbook of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: "Its relative frequency varies between 4.2 and 73.8 percent"! Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I don't have access to the full text of the worldwide review by Avelar et al (2011), I feel it is reasonable to extract the relevant information from the rather clearly written abstract. (In other words I've changed my mind...) 31.48.175.145 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a big study (possibly the biggest?) and fairly recent. I agree. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My thinking too, Axl. The figures appear to be based on a systematic review of the world literature. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)