User talk:Alchemistdental

Bruxism
Hello and welcome. I removed your edit to bruxism. All medical content on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. For guidance about what constitutes a suitable source, please see WP:MEDRS. Usually, review papers in peer review journals, and mainstream medical textbooks. Many thanks, Lesion  ( talk ) 16:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope this is the way to reach you. The observations are based on clinical results achieved on hundreds of patients, over 2 decades on my patients and other dentists trained by me. my results have been published in peer reviewed journal that i listed. The opinions are contrary to those existing, hence no other citations can be made available. Please know, Albert Einstein and Neils bohr spoke strongly against peer review, strongly represented on wiki. how will newer clinical results or extra-ordinary solutions come to general publics rescue. Please allow publishing. wiki is not against self citation. Dr Sanjay Arora 17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have seen now "famdent", which presume refers to this journal: . Regarding this journal, I am not sure if it is indexed on pubmed:, and from the journal homepage it is unclear if there is peer review. I did not see any specific reference in the content, it would be helpful to cite a specific paper rather than just the journal so the source could be assessed as per WP:MEDRS.


 * From your comment above it sounds like you are a researcher, and such persons frequently have difficulty at first when starting on Wikipedia. There are a few main issues:
 * Wikipedia tends to require a specific type of publication ... not all publications are suitable (see WP:MEDRS).
 * Some academics tend to want to only cite their own publications. This may or may not be appropriate, depends on the exact circumstances. See WP:CITESELF and WP:conflicts of interest (medicine)
 * The names of researchers and clinicians are not usually notable for readers of the encyclopedia. Hence details of treatments tent to be described without details about who promotes such treatment. Usually the only people named in person are very significant figures in the history of the condition, e.g. the person who first described it.


 * I would also comment specifically in this instance, my impression was that the mainstream opinion of how bruxism should be managed is now against occlusal adjustments as there is no evidence. That is not to say the Wikipedia article should not present other views, but they must be presented with due weight against other content which more closely represents how the condition is managed in mainstream practice. See UNDUE . Kind regards, Lesion  ( talk ) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes i am the first to state this. I dont prefer peer reviewed journals because "peer" means equal, how would you get a peer of Einstein or Bohr or planck who stated the same. i like to publish where peer review is not an issue so as to grant the idea to general doctors with a thinking mind. Here occlusal adjustment is not being advised, what is being advised is to revert to an accepted normal occlusion, helped by some new technological advances which help a doctor in measuring forces. so no equilibration is being advised except when there is a supra-eruption, which warrants the procedure anyways. what is being advised is to add or move teeth to what is a normal class1 pattern with the help of digital instruments that measure pressure. Wiki elsewhere lists the advantages of non-peer review, as advocated by these amazing scientists.Dr Sanjay Arora 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC) If you are a dentist you would appreciate the picture provided in the beginning of the article on Bruxism, there is no incisal overlap or overbite almost becoming an open bite, a relatively new phenomenon over last 100 years, the original occlusal classification by Angle never listed open bite, is it because he never saw it, less likely. if the overbite was present here with zero overjet mandible could not have moved a necessity for grinding-logical physics laws.same is true for lateral grinding, canines would stop it. i wonder why world misses on simple solutions.Dr Sanjay Arora 18:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC) You would be surprised to know Einsteins article on special theory was almost rejected by peers and that went on to win the Nobel Prize.Dr Sanjay Arora 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC) All this and many more articles talks about is no solution, please permit if i am overstepping some rule, as this can fire imagination of some doctors.Dr Sanjay Arora 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If Einstein had attempted to place his new theory on Wikipedia (if it had been around then), then it would have been removed as original research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a platform to advance new scientific ideas. The encyclopedia tends to lag behind advances until they become more accepted. As an indicator of this, sources for medical content need to be review papers (ideally systematic reviews/meta analyses) or medical textbooks (usually mainstream textbooks)... you are very welcome to contribute with such content, but the encyclopedia is not the place for new breakthroughs etc.


 * I do not pretend to understand the details of your approach, but as I understand the terms, dentistry can be conformative or reorganized. Conformative does not alter the patients occlusion, whatever normal is for that person. Re-organized seeks to change the native occlusion. Therefore, any orthodontic moving of teeth, orthognathic surgery, or alteration of the occlusal surfaces of teeth is reorganizing the occlusion. I think it is inaccurate to say that anyone without a class 1 occlusion is abnormal. Firstly, signifacant proportions of the general population are not class i, and secondly, many, many people have class ii or iii and are healthy. This view tends to be supported by the mainstream literature, which repeatedly finds no statistically significant correlation between malocclusions and bruxism. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all this is not a theory, but practiced over 2 decades and has stood unopposed as a modality over 10's of presentations and publishing and writing on the fb blog, second, for a moment look at it from another point of view- Bruxism itself is not a disease, it produces diseases. It's an act of grinding between 2 objects, one stationary-essentiallly maxilla. Now this act cannot happen if there is a stop to motion. maxillary front teeth when they dont overlap lower front teeth, snuggly, mandible can move. class1 is a target whenever a patient goes to orthodontist for a retruded chin or protruding upper as in class2 div 1 or when a dentist observes a deep bite dentist educates patient about potential problem of deep bite and tries achieving class 1 again, purely for esthetics or avoiding tmj. they also try correcting crowding and spacing of class1. class3 can create esthetic issues of overgrown mandible and henc class1 is a normal goal. the only mistake is of leaving a 2mm anterior gap or overjet, which allows the mandibular movement. i am just throwing light from a perspective of a common sense or a physicist.Dr Sanjay Arora 04:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC) if you notice what is given in the article originally are all theories with no simplistic prespective.Dr Sanjay Arora 04:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)