Talk:Tooth enamel

Edit by Raul654
&rarr;Raul654 22:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

General
I am trying to add a "Main Article" link to the oral hygiene section but I am having trouble. Help is requested. Please add a working "Main Article" link to the oral hygiene section.

Just one thing. WHy is it that in the very start, it says:

Tooth Enamel, or Toof Enamel as it is called by black women.That kind of implies that they are differnt form * from the rest of people, which they aren't...Or maybe they are. We'll leave it up to you to decide. That does seem just a little racist doesn't it?
 * It was vandalism which was cleared up in <2 minutes

Cocaine
"Tooth enamal can be attacked and destroyed by lengthy exposure to acids created in the mouth by eating or drug use (including cocaine)." The article on Cocaine says that this is myth. Which article is correct? From the cocaine article "A common misconception is that the smoking of cocaine breaks down tooth enamel and causes tooth decay." User:JohnJohn
 * When I gave this article a nearly-complete face lift, I referred to many of my textbooks and other sources, but could not find evidence for the quote you are referring to, which was in this article's earlier version. Consequently, if memory serves me correctly, I did not include it in the update.  I will be taking many more courses on drug dependecy/abuse and pathology.  If I run into anything definitive on cocaine's effect on tooth enamel, I will add what I learn. J.R. Franco 03:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Excellent face-lift. The old article was considerably shorter and probably wrong. User:JohnJohn

I just finished taking a course on drug abuse, and I think there were a couple of direct deleterious effects of cocaine on tooth enamel. Nonetheless, I will not add anything until I can find some reliable sources on the topic. dozenist 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Fluoride
After looking at the article Water fluoridation, I realized my little section on the benefits of fluoride to enamel could be more "controversial" than I initially intended. Thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that there is no possible way to omit talking about fluoride in a truly complete article on enamel. Further, the article goes in length about the benefits of fluoride, and I think it does so appropriately since it is very much in line with the vast majority of dental/health research, the vast majority of biochemical research, and the vast majority of the professionals' viewpoints in those respective fields (this includes the sucess of fluorinated water against dental caries). The politics and "controveries" surrounding water fluoridation, I believe, should not be placed here (perhaps still linked to if it is a must?) and would be placed preferably in its own article. dozenist 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur, the article's discussion of fouridation is appropriate and scientific. Honestly, the water flouridation article needs to either: 1) be moved to an article titled Water Flouridation (controversy) or the like, or 2) be expanded to include some actual, scientific information instead/in addition to the conspirational ravings that currently fill it. - Jersyko 22:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

--- There is a clarification needed for distinguishing calcium fluoride (fluorite) and sodium fluoride, as the original editor claims they are different in the dental health context but does not discuss why. It is commonly known among chemists that sodium salts are almost always much more soluble than the equivalent calcium salts. This means that between two solutions of each salt at the same concentration, the calcium fluoride will release fewer free fluoride anions. Fluorite, the most common natural flouride source, also contains the calcium cation which should more greatly assist remineralization than other fluoride salts. However, fluorite is exceedingly insoluble in water. The exact difference in mechanism between only fluorite and only artificial fluoride I can only speculate, though I strongly believe that the best results for remineralization would come from coadministration of calcium ions and fluoride from different sources. Further, due to the low solubility of calcium fluoride, fluoridation of calcium-containing drinks is certain to reduce the amount of dissolved calcium (and precipitate fluorite from solution or suspension), thereby diminishing the dietary benefit of said drink (namely milk, famously publicized for its calcium content, and commonly fluoridated commercially). According to a public fluoridation system census in the US in 1992 (cited on the Water Fluoridation wiki page), sodium fluoride was a minority fluoride source, comprising only 9% of bulk treatment feedstock. This is ironic, as sodium fluoride is often targeted by fluoride critics, as opposed to the "scarier sounding" names of the silicon-containing majority sources of fluoride. Fluorosilicic acid and its disodium salt comprised 63% and 28%, respectively.

As a personal side note, the amount of collateral evidence for fluoride - that is, with respect to components of human health that don't involve the remineralization feature of fluoride - is lacking. Some of the alarmism of fluoride critics is understandable mainly because the prevalence of the practice itself assumes there are no adverse health effects, in a strange society-wide example of confirmation bias. Studies of non-dental adverse effects are further complicated by the fact that actual per-person exposure to fluoride is difficult to measure precisely over a large sample set. Several studies which concluded that fluoridation at appropriate levels bears no negative health consequences were statistical studies with little or no attention paid to any individual cases, or were conducted with unsatisfactory control sets. Since nearly every person in developed nations is regularly exposed to fluoride, either by consumption or dental hygiene, finding "statistically equivalent" individuals with exceptionally low or zero exposure to fluoride (the only proper controls in a fluoride study) is obviously very difficult. To this end, I believe any legitimate, well-conducted study which finds significant side effects of any kind (besides the obvious fluorosis) should be publicized, since such results are relatively more valuable. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.251.139 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Enamel in non-human Animals
Aren't all animals non-human? Seems like some awkward wording to me. I wont change it though because I'm not a biologist or dentist -- I may not understand the conventions of the field. Robinoke 14:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)^
 * I agree that the wording is awkward, and, as far as I know, that wording is not sanctioned in the field of dentistry. Now, whether it is in the field of Zoology or Biology, I do not know and we should ask someone in those fields.  The reason I ultimately used that particular wording was a superficial one--- it was to keep the article consistent with the wording used in the tooth article, which has a section with that title.  I am not particularly dear to the wording and would not disagree changing both articles.  Still, I would want some advice from a Biologist or Zoologist first. dozenist 02:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC

Human teeth are largely similar in structure to that of the primates, and basal mammals (toothwise we're pretty primitive mammals). The title of the section is pretty rubbish really. I'm one of the zoologists you were looking for. Wise zoologist (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Human is an animal in all practical senses of the word. If human wouldn't be an animal, part of the animal kingdom, what would we be? Claiming otherwise is usually founded in religious concepts.

Britannica Enamel article
I just noticed that the Britannica "enamel" article is 187 words long. Ha. Just thought i'd share. - Jersyko talk  01:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some notes
Greetings all, I've come to the article to do some copy-editing in support of this articles nomination to Featured Article status. I'd like to make a few comments/explanations for any changes I feel should be explained or I wish to seek input on.
 * it is believed that they aid in the development of enamel by serving as a framework support, among other functions
 * I think that "framework support" would read better as "support framework", or "framework of support" but I'm concerned that would change the meaning. Do the amelogenins and enamelins serve as a support to the framework (framework support), or is it itself a framework, which supports the material of the enamel (support framework)?


 * In permanent teeth, the enamel rods near the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) tilt slightly more toward the root of the tooth than would be expected.
 * I'm taking out "more and "than would be expected". It is unclear who would be making expectations about enamel rod alignment, or why expectations would be made, and what permanent teeth are being compared to that serves as a reference point to claim that permanent teeth tilt abnormally....I might assume baby teeth, but that information is not explicit within the article.

EvilPhoenix talk 10:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good editing. I had to make a change to one of your edits because "Ameloblasts and Tomes' processes, the cells which initiate enamel formation, affect the crystals' pattern" made it sound like Tomes' processes were cells that initiate enamel formation. Well, Tomes' processes are not cells and they do not initiate enamel formation.  That description refers to only ameloblasts, but both affect the crystals' pattern.  Also, in the intro, I changed another sentence to read "which is seen clinically as the cementoenamel junction (CEJ)" because it was referring to what is viewed in a clinical setting (as opposed to a microscope).  Now, "framework support" was a term I read in one of the textbooks, so I kept the term as is.  For accuracy, it may be best to keep it that way, but, in answer to your question, I believe the proteins mostly serve as a support to the framework (framework support). Keep in mind, however, that research is still ongoing to discover what and how exactly these proteins function in the development of enamel.  - Dozenist  talk  11:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I'll be back for more. However, from your edit summary:
 * "I think "seen" is better than "known as" because it refers to what is viewed in a clinical setting (as opposed to a microscope)"
 * I disagree...Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus intended to be understood by the general population, referring to a clinical setting may be a bit obscure, whereas using a word such as "known" is more clear, generally, in my opinion. And thank you for clarifying the Tomes process bit, I misunderstood it from my first read of it. EvilPhoenix talk 11:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Evilphoenix, and i am still not entirely certain what the sentence means. That was the reason i didn't make a change to it when i copyedited last week . . . In any event, if "known" doesn't drastically alter the meaning of the sentence, i think it is the best choice. -  Jersyko   talk  12:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

sclerotic

 * "..but is also an effect of the underlying dentin becoming sclerotic"

This sentence should have a brief clause clarifying the term sclerotic, as it is not generally known, and I have no clue what it means, and therefore how to best clarify it. EvilPhoenix talk 21:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

featured
Congratulations fellow editors on this article reaching Featured status (It's the first Featured Candidate I've chosen to work on, so I'm excited!). EvilPhoenix talk 03:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats, especially to Dozenist, of course. Ditto for me - it's the first featured article i've worked on to some extent before it achieved that status.  Yay! -  Jersyko   talk  03:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugh, whose idea was it to make this the front page article? The last thing I wanna see when I wake up is a mouldy old tooth. Still, good article, guys. :) --Psyk0 09:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "whose idea was it to make this the front page article" - that would be me. &rarr;Raul654 21:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the Britannica enamel article, then look at this one. I think that might convince you . . . :) -  Jersyko   talk  22:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

sugar and latic acid
Our article talks a lot about sugar being the cause of dental decay, and mentions the reason for this is the production of latic acid in the mouth by bacteria eating the sugar. True enough, but indeed if this is the case, does it not follow that all acidic foods are dangerous to teeth? For example, latic acid is a primary food element: pickles, saurekraut, yoghurt, to name a few. Or, vinager for example is another strong acid. Should we not emphesis the danger of acidic foods along with sugar, since its really the acid that causes the damage? The benefit of neutralizing acidic foods as soon as possible with a swig of water after eating? Stbalbach 05:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to accept the fact that this topic is too complicated for me to answer your question fully because it is too complicated for me to understand in the first place. Nonetheless, I will try.  There are many foods whose digestion begins in the mouth.  Starch is a notable example, and indeed its digestion lowers the pH in the mouth leaving demineralized enamel vulnerable to invading bacteria.  Sugar is mentioned specifically and so frequently because it seems to be the worst culprit in doing this.  (Coincidently, cheese seems to work in the opposite direction and is thus known as anti-cariogenic, meaning not causing tooth decay and instead may help fight it).  Anyways, sugar's prominent role is the reason for why it is the focus of conversation when talking about prevention methods of tooth decay.
 * The damage of acidic foods OR OTHER SUBSTANCES always remains a concern. I just noticed that I did not put the critical pH of enamel demineralization in the article, so I will add that somewhere when I get a chance.  Regardless, if the pH drops low enough in the mouth, enamel is demineralized.  This is one reason why cocaine, which is very acidic, is thought to contribute to tooth decay when ingested orally (which I have not mentioned in the article yet because I am looking for at least one good reputable source to which to refer).  Once demineralization of enamel occurs, it will take some time (from memory, so I could be wrong--- but I think at least around 30 minutes) for it to remineralize, and during that time enamel remains vulnerable to bacteria.  This is despite drinking water after eating or with the pretty neutral pH of saliva floating around your mouth.  That is why the frequency, NOT the amount, of sugar consumption is important.  If you snack on 3 sugar-laden pieces of candy every 30 minutes, then the enamel never gets a chance to fully remineralize and stays vulnerable to bacteria throughout the day--- which is REALLY bad.  But if you snack on 30 pieces of candy once a day, then that means the enamel is only demineralized for about 30 minutes--- not quite as bad.  This reasoning is also behind the recommendation to drink your favorite soft drinks during meals and not in between meals.  Water during non-meal times can satisfy your thirst while keeping your enamel from demineralizing.
 * My response is already long and maybe more than what you wanted to know, but the other way to look at the cause of tooth decay focuses around bacteria because at the bottom of this discussion is that tooth decay is a disease. And the disease is the result of bacteria and bacterial by-products.  There are some dental researchers and microbiologists looking into antibiotics or some other way to control the bacterial colonies in the mouth.  If this is possible, then their hope is that there will be no future tooth decay ever even if people still consume sugar.  Personally, I think that would be a long way off.... IF that goal is even attainable.  But it is a reminder that the greatest culprit is not really sugar, but bacteria--- bacteria aided by sugar.  -Dozenist  talk  02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

When the pH in the mouth initially decreases from the ingestion of sugars, the enamel is demineralized and left vulnerable for about 30 minutes.
The above is a quote from this in-depth and technical article which demonstrates to me the necessity of established dentistry to support the status quo. A northern Wisconsin small town close to where I used to live has a strong advocacy group led by a dentist pushing for the elimination of flouride from the city's water. Looking at the Federal Government info page for communities flouridating their water, one sees that less than 50% communities flouridate their water. Slowly the government is increasing the content of allowable flouride in our water and food as an additive. I am disappointed to see in the award-winning site no negative information as to flouride, no negative information as to the harmful effects of acidic foods, and the repeated "sugar" warning with no substantial studies to show that this is the case. I would like to see less main stream iteration and more concern as to the fact that dental carries, despite years of flouridation, have not decreased in any meaningful way. I would like to see more information as to reenamilization of teeth, and theories that support alternative views of this vital subject as studies have shown the level of mouth bacteria as recorded as C Reactive Protien blood levels is the greatest danger to the heart. I am disappointed that this technical article reflecting science has failed to include anything less than supportive of the accepted method of treatment for dental health.

The emphasis on tooth development, which precluded any oppositional comment, leaves the reader wondering why so much technical information is here when the care of the teeth, including treatment outside mainstream theory, is excluded. Especially when one considers that this type of dental care is the major choice outisde the Western community.


 * I think, perhaps, that you might have missed this article: water fluoridation controversy. There is plenty of "negative information as to fluoride" there. -  Jersyko   talk  19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "...some intraoral bacteria interact with it and form lactic acid, which decreases the pH in the mouth." According to scientific studies and accepted by the scientific/dental community (which I also am referring to studies in biochemisty and microbiology), sugar is known to be broken down in this fashion, which is why it can be harmful to teeth over a long period of time.  There are many things in dentistry that need to be improved and/or established with more scientific study (such as the usual suggestion of going to the dentist for a teeth cleaning twice a year), but bacteria breaking down sugars with the resultant acid is already based on research.  Concerning negative effects of fluoride, the scientific/dental community has not found any negative effects in the doses currently recommended for dental health.  Unproven claims, possible but not established negative effects currently being investigated, and social/political arguments against water fluoridation belong in a more suitable article, as Jersyko has pointed out: water fluoridation controversy. - Dozenist  talk  18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5 nomination failed
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, since this version only includes a limited number of articles. It is now held ready for a later version such as Version 1.0 nomination. Walkerma 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

remineralization strategies
Why is there no coverage of remineralizing enamel via diet or newer topical products, e.g. Recaldent and ACP? See for example SomeNumpty 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, is the enamel made of cells, or not? How can something so hard be mostly water? I remember in health class in high school our book said the only thing harder than tooth enamel in nature is diamond. This can't be correct (and is in the article) as with a tongue ring you chip the enamel off your teeth, such would not be the case if the enamel was harder than steel. The snare (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Amalgam vs Resins
As a metallurgical engineer, I have concerns about the adsorption of mercury from amalgams used in dental cavities. As a child I was told that the mercury was "locked up" in the amalgam. As an adult, my amalgams have become brittle and had to be replaced suggesting that story of mercury staying in the amalgam was a lie. As a metallurgical engineer, I understand that it is impossible for the mercury not to leak into the digestive fluids and hence into the body. Yet dentists still recommend this method.

Perhaps the mercury acts as an anti-bacterial agent suppressing caries, and that benefit has to be weighed against the effect of mercury on the brain and liver. I also note that a resin filling does not require the undercutting of the enamel as an amalgam does to hold the filling in place, a glue does that job. I have a crown because an over zealous dentist cut too much out of the tooth to support an amalgam filling.

It would be good if we could have an honest discussion of this topic by those who know more than I do. I currently have replaced most of my amalgams with resin, even after being told that it was more expensive and would not last as long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkyVA (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Enamel in animals
This is a confusing and misleading title. This would imply that humans are not animals. Also in MOS:head  MOS:head  wp:MOS, it says "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article ... .". Therefore, I will revert the rvv, and start this discussion thus.96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment I made it a compromise with "Enamel in nonhuman animals," because "Enamel in..." should definitely be there (I didn't look at MOS, but no matter what MOS says, just "Nonhuman animals" doesn't tell the reader much about what's going to be in the section). But I agree with the editor who reverted you before&mdash;while humans are technically animals, in almost all uses "animals" refers to nonhumans, and specifying "nonhuman animals" is really splitting hairs in an unnecessary way. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also notice that this issue was raised 3 years ago, with no explicit consensus reached (as far as I can tell). &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Other mammals" as an alternative, or "Enamel in other mammals" if you like. I didn't take a close look at the prior discussion, but the section only deals with mammals so it seems reasonable and sounds less overly-PC.--otherlleftI can take the heat 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

doubleeditconflict(lol)::I do implore you to look at wp:MOS. It has important information that requires headings not to use redundant adnauseum repetitious overuse of words in titles and subjects. I've seen things like ==Skiing in Canada== ==Skiing in the United States== ==Skiing in Ireland== in skiing (not particularly that article). It's important to take out the word "enamel". And although it almost always means nonhuman animals when people say "animals", that is still ambiguous, and that is not true in the world or biology, and usually, that is still important to fix. We need to find something that can replace animals.96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article, and since it is "enamel" instead of "tooth enamel", I GUESS I'm ok with it, but this is a really fine line. I would prefer if we used something that can globally include, incase something pops up, that we need to include reptiles (say, incase that biology finds that reptiles do also have enamel, or at least some or one species).96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, other mammals seems the most appropriate. We will use that.96.53.149.117 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I'm gonna keep "In." "Other mammals" alone, like I said, doesn't give the reader a good idea what the section's going to be about.  And sections starting with "In" are pretty standard. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is tooth enamel made of cells?
Is it actually a tissue, or is just an organic substance. Maybe there should be something as to whether it is or isn't. I'm guessing no, because I can't see how something so hard (like rock) could also be organic, that could also grow. The snare (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I remember my health book I had in high school said the only thing harder than tooth enamel is diamond. I think this is wrong. If this were true then a tongue ring wouldn't be able to scratch the enamel off your teeth. The snare (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Enamel consists almost exclusively of mineral hydroxyapatite. No cells. While it is pretty hard, a lot of materials are much harder than enamel. Steels, many minerals, glass, etc. Chivesud (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To: Sven Manguard
It looks like references to the article were poorly defined from the beginning. So, I reverted to my revision back. Soft drinks do dissolve enamel :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chivesud (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine naturally present?
I would like to know if there is fluorine naturally present in the enamel, i.e. before any toothpaste containing it is used. Is there anyone who could add this information? --Nefronus (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

what is QAS?
"The combination of fluoride ion and QAS was found stronger antimicrobial effect on many oral bacteria associated with dental decay, including S. mutans."

What is this QAS and where is the source? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.119.13 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tooth enamel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050521075135/http://www.ada.org/public/topics/whitening_faq.asp to http://www.ada.org/public/topics/whitening_faq.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031011064508/http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/teeth.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/teeth.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414192523/http://www.thejcdp.com/issue001/gandara/gandara.htm to http://www.thejcdp.com/issue001/gandara/gandara.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rev.tamu.edu/stories/04/041504-6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please update with: "Multiscale engineered artificial tooth enamel"
It may(?) be good to add a (very?) brief note about this study to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

Scientists report the development of artificial tooth enamel from aligned assembled hydroxyapatite nanowires, a biomimetic material that has superior properties to natural tooth enamel and shows potential for use i.a. in dentistry (if found, made or further developed to be compatible with the mouth environment).

Maybe it could be considered another approach to the regeneration reported on 30 August 2019 with info about it in the section #Regrowth.

Maybe it is (also?) relevant for inclusion at Biomimetic material or a new list related to it or Restorative dentistry or an article like(!) Timeline of dentistry research and development (see Template:Science year nav).

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)