Talk:Stomatitis

Causes
Lesion -- excellent work. Comment -- I think one purpose of an article such as this one is to convey to the lay reader, at least summarily, the type of product that may cause the malady. We had a short sentence in regarding Balsam of Peru, which has been deleted, which pointed quite summarily to the fact that it is in some food, drink, and medicine.

The actual list of items at the BOP article, which may well be of interest to the person reading this article, is of course much longer. It includes items such as specific foods and drink, toothpaste, mouthwash, cough medicine/suppressant and lozenges, oral and lip ointments, dental cement, eugenol used by dentists, some periodontal impression materials, and in the treatment of dry socket in dentistry.

But I believe a summary sentence, such as the one alluded to, would be appropriate, and would signal the reader that if they go to the BOP article they may well find the longer list. I would urge that it -- or a similar summary sentence -- be inserted. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to edit this article which is in a poor state. My understanding of the consensus on WT:MED was that no specific allergen should be given undue weight, but rather the most common ones should be listed together. Wiki is lacking a good article about allergic reactions in the mouth. We used to have allergic contact cheilitis, but it was short and got merged into cheilitis. Related to stomatitis. Would be good to have a dedicated article on allergic reactions in the mouth. Not sure what it should be called either. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Certainly, top 5 allergens -- which are the most common allergens, and which BOP is among -- should be given weight ... if they cause stomatitis.  If there is proper RS support of other top 5 allergens causing stomatitis, I've no problem with them being added.


 * But my immediate problem, discussed above, is the deletion of the sentence referring to the types of products BOP is in. That's not intuitive, and is basic enough for a lay reader -- our audience -- that a short sentence reflecting it is appropriate.  They come to this page thinking "the doctor says I have x; I wonder what I may use that contains x?"


 * And, of course, the same holds true for any other allergens -- if we have RS support for what the allergen is in, summarily reflect it.


 * I also believe, per our guideline, that the book refs that are completely appropriate should be restored. They are a resource for the reader who wishes to click through, to read more.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK please feel free to edit. Lesion  ( talk ) 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead image
The infant's mouth is not open to show inflammation of the mouth. What we can see is inflammation of the lips, especially the corners of the lips. Picture therefore more appropriate on cheilitis and/or angular cheilitis imo. Lesion ( talk ) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, unless someone disagrees.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncited material
Primary source -- which is sometimes (though rarely ... it has to meet certain criteria) -- acceptable is being deleted. While the article is largely uncited by any source whatsoever. I'm not sure why. Shall we delete immediately (as the primary source material was deleted immediately) all unsourced information?

BTW, as to primary source material, the circumstances under which it may be included is as follows: "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the prevalence of allergic responses to any particular antigen vary according to geographic location, ethnic background, socioeconomic status, and other factors? How much wight should we be putting on the results of one primary source, presumably from one part of the world, when this encyclopedia is supposed to be for the global use? I think it would be good to present about 10-20 common allergens in a table or list format, and unless there are very strong sources to support such statements about which are the "top allergens", it is probably better not to go into that. Yes this article is not in the best state, but that is no reason that standards should be lowered for future content... 188.29.95.225 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Another type of stomatitis to cover
stomatitis medicamentosa. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)