Talk:Wisdom tooth/Archive 2

Article name
This article deals almost entirely with the subject of wisdom teeth impaction rather than the anatomic subject of wisdom teeth. The anatomic structures are well detailed in tooth and molar. Propose a move to Wisdom tooth impaction with a REDIRECT from Wisdom tooth. Ian Furst (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct. It is mostly focussed on pathology and treatment currently. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to the move, would be doing a rework of the article to improve references and flow following the MEDMOS template. Re the treatment controversy section, would include this as a section of the "treatment or management" section.Ian Furst (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A redirect would not be good, it should really be a disambiguation page if anything, directing to a section in tooth, molar, and the new impaction article. While any renamed article should have a hatnote to tooth/molar, it is not enough.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I think I agree with DAB. This is the rationale: Per Template:Tooth anatomy, wiki appears to have dedicated articles for all the other human teeth apart from upper and lower wisdom teeth, which are dealt with in this page. As pointed out above, there is very little normal anatomy content, and mostly it focusses on pathology and treatment. To comply with the wider picture, suggest have an article wisdom tooth impaction, and turn wisdom tooth into a DAB pointing to both mandibular third molar and maxillary third molar (which would need to be created). Lesion  ( talk ) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so I would move the current page to wisdom tooth impaction, create 2 new pages for maxillary third molar and mandibular third molar (that would be analogous to the pages of mandibular second molar, etc...) then a DAB page for wisdom teeth that offers the 3 options + molar and human teeth. Do I have the consensus correct? Ian Furst (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Up to you ... If we wanted to fit with the "bigger picture", which is not necessarily the best thing to do in all situations... Those new articles maxillary third molar and mandibular third molar would only need to be started, and might be able to jack some content from the current wisdom tooth and just copypaste it in. I see many of the other dedicated articles on teeth are only 1-2 paragraphs. I have a few sources that might help if needed: grays anatomy 39e and Netter's H&N anatomy for dentistry (not in electronic format unfortunately).  Lesion  ( talk ) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -I highly suggest waiting more than a few hours for consensus. Moving the page will not be as simple as you think. Follow the directions over at WP:MOVE for all the appropriate steps.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case I will post on Ian's behalf at WPANAT to attract some more commentators. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

will wait a day or two before starting anything. Ian Furst (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is a lot of content on extraction, and that the majority of that content should be moved to a separate article. However I feel we should retain this article, perhaps creating the two subpages and redirecting here, as (1) this creates an unnecessary split that makes it harder for lay readers, who will only be acquainted with the term 'wisdom tooth', to navigate (2) unnecessarily fragments content (3) as with my recent experience traversing the WP:ANATOMY suite of articles, we have seen with other articles (See the cervical spinal nerve 1 suite) this may, at the time, seem like a good idea, but actually ends up fragmenting the entire editing effort and leads to a diaspora of poorly edited articles that contain a significant amount of duplicated content for no real reason, that could easily be represented in one article with benefit to readers: eg "these are also known as the maxillary/mandibular third molars, the mandibular being on the lower row of teeth, and maxillary being on the upper row of teeth". (4) Lastly, I don't think there would be significant differences between the two articles, yet a lot of similar content (impaction, society & culture, history);
 * My proposed solution is create those two pages as redirects and add to the template; retain this page, and move much of the impaction content (esp. complications) to a separate article. --LT910001 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry LT, create which two pages as redirects? Right now this is the only tooth specific article that breaks from the anatomy template (see Dental anatomy then the specific redirects to each tooth like mandibular second molar, each tooth has an article maxillary or mandibular).  Although, there are also some generalized articles on teeth (tooth, human teeth, (incisor, molar (tooth), etc...) Each of the individual teeth articles gets about 30-40k hits/90days.  This article is getting 250k hits/90 days.  My assumption is the core use of this article is people looking for information on wisdom teeth extraction/impaction. Just to make sure I'm understanding what you propose, change this article to match the template used for other teeth (like mandibular second molar) then create a new page for wisdom teeth impaction using the MEDMOS template with a link between the two?  The current problem with this article is it mixes the anatomy (of third molars) and disorder (of impacted wisdom teeth) which gives the impression that every wisdom tooth is in need of treatment, adding to the controversy. Ian Furst (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, LT proposes not to have separate articles for mandibular third molar and maxillary third molar, but instead keep a page called wisdom tooth which discusses the anatomy of both on the same page. Mandibular third molar and maxillary third molar would instead function as redirects to the wisdom tooth article. That's the anatomy content, and for the clinical content about pathology and extraction, have a separate article called wisdom tooth impaction or something. (Correct me if I misunderstood). I would be happy with all that. I might also add that we have tooth impaction, not sure if you were already aware of that, although such an article should also cover impacted upper canines etc. Might even be better to call the new article to split from this wisdom tooth pathology to cover things like cysts. Lesion  ( talk ) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on LTs comments, I'm thinking that wisdom tooth impaction is the most accurate title (with a REDIRECT from wisdom tooth surgery). Here's my logic, erupted wisdom teeth are the same as all other teeth and their removal is due to caries or perio, same as other teeth.  Cysts and tumours around them is similar to other teeth.  However, wisdom tooth impaction and the removal of wisdom teeth due to the potential for impaction is a major issue and worthy of an article.  A good analogy in my mind is aorta and aortic aneurysm.  aortic aneurysm is a pathologic state that can be stable for years.  Therefore, you don't really want the article to centre around the surgery itself, more on the description of the disorder.  Similar state with impacted wisdom teeth. Ian Furst (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you've very accurately captured my intent, as imprecise as I was in conveying it =P. Would suggest so as to simplify the discussion and not have too many things going on, we first split the content into the wisdom tooth impaction article and then propose a merge. --LT910001 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll start a stub today, called wisdom tooth impaction and add a redirect for the surgery. Is it ok to simply move some of the content over (e.g. cut from one article an put in another)? Which articles did you want to merge LT? Ian Furst (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ugh... OK.... because I think the new article could be contentious in content (the treatment controversy aspect), rather than starting a stub and trying to expand rapidly I've decided to build the new article first then take it live. So far, it's just the intro (which scopes out the ground I think needs to be covered) and the headings.  No references yet, but I'll make sure all are secondary.  If anyone wants to/is willing to take a look for me, please feel free to play in my sandbox.  Glad to have feedback before building in the wrong direction.  Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * start of new article at Impacted wisdom teeth, i'll build a redirect for wisdom teeth surgery. I've redone the area of treatment controversy and purposely made each side equal weight.  Happy to discuss with others that are interested.  LT, if you have time could you read the new article and hit me to discuss how we might modify the old?  Thanks Ian Furst (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The new article is looking very good. As a suggestion only, how about move the majority of other content to Dental extraction? That won't leave much on this page, but I feel the content would be better placed there and leave this article looking less lopsided. LT910001 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, I disagree with the suggestion LT but the devil's in the details. This article is not well referenced, the extraction article already covers the information on typical extractions well and I've tried to build the new impacted wisdom teeth article with strong references.  My main issue with this article was it's lack of secondary sources and mix of anatomy-type article vs disorder-type structure. Let's discuss section by section, with the knowledge that the intent was to build this article into a stronger anatomy type article (correct?):

Opening - leave as is 1 Etymology - leave as is 2 Impaction - discusses one classification system of impaction, then goes into surgery, complications and history - now covered by new article recommend del. 3 Partial eruption - term is being discouraged, doesn't cite any references, now covered by new article - recommend del. 4 Extraction - leave as is, very general overview that should point to both extraction and impacted wisdom teeth imo (I would also add a third reason for extraction as erupted wisdom teeth are extracted just like all other teeth for caries, perio, VRF, etc...) 5 Post-extraction problems - unreferenced, already well covered in both extraction and impacted wisdom teeth, I think it should be del 5.1 Bleeding and oozing - as above 5.2 Dry socket - as above, plus it has it's own article 5.3 Swelling - as above 5.4 Nerve injury - as above 6 Treatment controversy - covered in new article and was very careful to give equal weighting to each side (7 lines each I think) 6.1 Scientific trials - moved the agreed to text by user:hildabast to the new article 6.2 Recommendations - I really dislike this section, after collecting strong secondary sources for this topic I find it's now NPOV and opinion pushing. The best line I found during my research was in a systematic review on the debate that concluded, "“Extreme positions aggressively advocating either treatment option cannot be rationally supported. Initially polite debate on the topic usually degenerates into inane comments, accusations, and sound bites citing rare outcomes as evidence to support a position.” I can't figure out how to classify these sources too, not primary research, really, they're reviews to back an opinion. 7 Vestigiality and variation - leave as is and build, I think we need to make this article more like the second molar page but on steroids.  Wisdom teeth have been discussed for 2000 years in medical texts. 8 Potential uses for extracted teeth - I think we need to either verify this by secondary sources, multiple primary sources or remove (in this article).  Seriously.  I'm already getting people coming in asking me to cryogenicly store their wisdom teeth 9 See also 10 References 11 External links Ian Furst (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Imo, should follow standardized headings for WPANAT, with sub-articles for clinical significance nested in summary style. But, then again these are only recommended and do not necessarily have to be followed for all articles; and whomsoever is going to be reworking the article probably should have a greater choice since they are going to be doing the work.
 * LT, did you do most of the articles on the individual teeth? I don't mind reworking this one but I've got no experience with ANAT articles. Ian Furst (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Change to anatomy article
The plan is to clean up and convert the article to anatomy once returns to the land of broad-band. Until then, I've put a temporary See also tag on the article to link to Impacted wisdom teeth. Will get to this next week some time. Until then, please add any comments you'd like us to incorporate. Ian Furst (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have completed the cleanup. The structure, function and history sections are all a bit sparse. Having rearranged it, I would suggest relocate "Post-extraction problems", "Treatment controversy" and "Potential uses" to either Dental extraction or Impacted wisdom teeth. I have also slightly reworded the 'agenesis' paragraph to make it more readable to the layman, I hope that this preserves the meaning you intend. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I have already included the post-extraction problems (MEDMOS term is Risks and complications, the treatment controversy immediately following it (took care to make make each side equal weight and to use Hildabast's wording). I'll delete these two sections from here.  Re potential uses, I'm concerned about this section.  The first section is original research about stem cell harvest and the second reference is from time magazine on tooth transplant from 1964.  The second paragraph needs to go.  The first section is interesting but very original research. As per MEDMOS it should go but I'd like to get other opinions.  Is it new and important enough to include original research?  I don't know enough about MEDMOS protocol or microbio to make an informed opinion.  Is there someone on the Wikiproject with advanced knowledge of stem cell therapy? Ian Furst (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the section on impaction and partial eruption. Both are incomplete/inaccurate and need new references.  Do you want me to make a small summary of the information (with references) from the impacted wisdom teeth article or remove the section ? Ian Furst (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A few points:


 * The article currently does not really give much detail on the actual anatomy. Try here for some useful sources:
 * The see also link to impacted wisdom teeth at the end of the lead and again in the clinical relevance section. Suggest if you want an obvious link, to use the hatnote format at the beginning of the lead:

... except with better wording ;-) Alternatively scrap the link in the lead and just have the one in the clinical relevance section. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect,, rather than rewriting the section on clinical significance to bring it inline with the new article, I'm going to add a short summarizing paragraph and put the hatnote after OK? Ian Furst (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've got one of the major researchers in the field involved, he's not very techy so I send him each revision as a word doc. It's going well.  Ian Furst (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Chopped down clinical significance
I've chopped down the clinical significance section and replaced with a short paragraph for now. I'll start working on building some of this back up. Genetics of impaction, Moss's theory of growth (and how it relates to impaction) and other theories of impaction. Mentions of wisdom teeth from Hippocrates, Darwin, etc... All the anatomic stuff that wasn't appropriate for the impacted teeth article. Ian Furst (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

History
I feel as if this article needs to go in depth more on the history of wisdom teeth especially with Homo sapiens. This page does not inform readers on the history of why we have wisdom teeth or how the first humans used them for the breakdown of grain. Secondly, it does not explain why we get them removed today. For example, the jaw of a Homo sapiens is smaller now that it was for our ancestors therefore we do not have adequate amounts of room in our mouth for them. Finally, since they are vestigial structures and evolution is slowly working on them, explain how humans may no longer have third molars in the future due to the disuse of them. Stine.45 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Human vestigiality
There's actually more information about Wisdom Teeth in Human vestigiality than there is in this main article. Kortoso (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wisdom 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 https://web.archive.org/20100728221912/http://www.aaoms.org:80/wisdom_teeth.php to http://www.aaoms.org/wisdom_teeth.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Commentary
Overall, the article was well written and informative. It provided general facts and the articles cited were mostly reliable. The citations themselves were correctly written and all of the links to the sources were functioning. However, there were certain locations within the article that were missing a citation and explicitly stated, [citation needed]. In other words, there was information provided and no citation given so this information cannot be considered reliable. Moreover, the length of the article was surprisingly short. I say surprisingly because I feel that there was more that could have been said about the subject of wisdom teeth. There were only five sections within the article and each were significantly brief. In my opinion, the subsections of "Anatomy" and "History" were lacking information and were underrepresented. There was an apparent content gap with regards to the topic of wisdom teeth and the evolution of wisdom teeth. The author briefly mentioned that the number of wisdom teeth located in any individual may vary and this may be due to a particular gene or genes. I believe this information could have been expanded on and explained in a tone regarding evolution, why there is such variation, and how wisdom teeth prevalence has changed over years. Dpr78 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Darling Roajs