Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Dentistry -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	Dentistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale

The first dental school was not open in Baltimore 1840.It was open in Bainbridge ohio by Dr. John M. Harris in 1828, the school is now a museum. John M harris younger brother Chappin A Harris went on to co-found the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery in 1840, 12 years after Johns founding in Ohio. The information for this is sighthed already on wikipedia under a general search for Bainbridge, Ross County, Ohio ([1]). Levi 62 12 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== everything2.com ==

• Regarding the link to everything2.com - I think the site is temporarily down. It should be up later... --Alex.tan 08:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sorry to have to reply to myself but a good writeup on the history of dentistry is here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=15404 ... anyone want to rephrase it for wikipedia? Alex.tan 08:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Panoramic Radiograph 2 Myth 3 People's teeth in the UK 4 Dentists and medical doctors 5 External links 6 doctors and dentists? 7 Dentistry in Australia 8 A query regarding adding a site link to the page "dentistry" 9 Dentistry throughout the world 10 Dental Organisations 11 Article rating 11.1 Suggestions for improvement 12 Proposal: Create a Separate 'Dentist' page 13 Young Student Enquiry 14 Dentists in popular media 15 Question? 15.1 First Dental School? 16 Related dental topics cull 17 Edits 18 Major cleanup 19 Merge? 20 Tooth Picture Caption 21 Apecoectomy 22 POV ARTICLE 23 Pakistan / India -- emotional edit warring 23.1 Indus Valley 24 Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Panoramic Radiograph

• I wonder if that huge x-ray image is representative of dental x-ray? In general dentistry the areas x-rayed tend be limited to a few or several teeth, in my limited experience (see dental phobia). A-giau 17:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The dental x-ray shown is a Panograph, a kind of dental extraoral (film not in the mouth) radiograph using tomography. These are generally not used for a diagnosing dental caries because the image isn't sharp enought, but are for examining both jaws at once to evaluate impacted teeth, eruption patterns (children), trauma, identify diseases of the jaw, bone loss, large lesions, etc. LEN, RDH.

• The dental x-ray shown is also known as an "orthopantomograph" or OPG.
  -'Izz DDS

The concept of just what is representative of dental x-rays is changing, much as the concept of conventional photography is changing. Although the vast majority of dental radiographs, both intraoral and extraoral, are recorded on conventional photographic emulsion, the move toward digital imaging is progressing. This will continue to occur, despite the fact that current attempts to contain health care costs are not doing anything to facilitate technological progress.--
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the image leading the dentistry page should be a periapical or bitewing film. This would be much more indicative of that which dentists primarily use on a daily basis.

Myth

• Dentists have a higher suicide rate than any other profession. Percolator 20:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Dentists are no more likely than the general population or other white collar workers to commit suicide. This myth got started in 1933; its origins and more recent data are presented in the Suicide Reference LibraryOdontastic

People's teeth in the UK

• Why do the British have bad teeth?

• • From what I have seen, British are no worse than the rest of Europe. --Burbster 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • The British do not have bad teeth, it is just the stereotypical image put upon us, similar to that of the British thinking that all Americans are hugely obese and overweight. Eternalnoob 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)and very stupid.

And why do like 1 in 5 dentists have a last name like Hertz or Payne or something? Do they do it on purpose?

I know dentists whose last names are Meaney, Butcher and Pullen. -_-

Dentists and medical doctors

Why is the training of dentists seperate to the training of other medical doctors? Dentistry is surely just another medical speciality? --Oldak Quill 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In its methadology, dentistry is predominantly a surgical discipline, and it would be difficult to argue for some objective distinction between the nuts and bolts of dentistry from that of surgery. However, dentistry is historically an offshoot of barbering and blacksmithing-- a sideline occupation that was at the time not suited as a separate profession in itself. It is a relatively recent event that dentistry was considered an occupation worthy of a distinct, separate profession. Because of its historical development as a profession independent of medicine, it is not considered a medical specialty. Universities that have both a medical and dental school commonly share pre-clinical basic science courses of study, but the classes diverge once the curriculum moves on the the clinical phase. Whereas the medical specialties require the completion of a medical degree, dental practice, including the dental specialties, entails the earning of a doctoral-level dental degree. These degrees are legally recognized as granting the right to practice solely in their corresponding professions-- a dental degree does not permit the practice of medicine, and a medical degree does not permit the practice of dentistry. (There is nothing to prevent a person from completing both a dental and medical course of study, leading to both dental and medical degrees. This is most commonly seen in the case of practitioners in the dental specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery, where the holding of a medical degree offers the political expedient of increasing priviledges in a hospital setting.)

So, dentistry has come to resemble medicine as it has developed from a trade to a science-based profession by a process, to use a metaphor, of convergent evolution. This is, by the way, no different from the development of any of a number of other health professions, such as podiatry, optometry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a host of others. Although they may intuitively seem like branches or specialties of medicine, their origins were independent, and they remain legally distinct professions.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of this commentary shoud go into the article, Mark, along with further commentary about the "side effects" of the traditional division of "medicine" and dentistry...like the fact that health insurance companies can offer plans that they claim are "comprehensive" of all health needs while utter failing to cover anything related to dentistry, even medically nessesary dental procedures such as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon might need to perform. 70.20.238.31 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I checked each entry in the external links section and removed over a dozen. WP is not a web directory, and the fact that there are no paid ads here doesn't mean that we should carry unpaid ads. I left in place what seems useful enough, but I don't claim to be an authority. Rl 09:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried adding www.Dentalcompare.com to the external links section and it was removed. Dentalcompare is a resource for dental professionals to keep up-to-date with the industry. Its compiled a product directory where dentists can search and compare products, alongside news, editorial, videos, and education for dental professionals. The site does not sell any products, so i'm not sure why it's being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.196.34 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

doctors and dentists?

A dentist is a doctor qualifed to practice dentistry

Is that appropriate, are dentists really 'doctors'? Would it be more appropriate to have something like:

• A dentist is a health professional qualifed to practice dentistry
• A dentist is a professional qualifed to practice dentistry
• A dentist is a person qualifed to practice dentistry

At least in the United States, training that is sufficient to qualify a person to legally practice dentistry requires the attainment of a doctoral-level degree-- either the Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (DMD) degree. So, the appellation "doctor" when referring to a dentist is correct.

Your confusion stems from the vernacular use of the term "doctor" to refer to a physician, but such use is imprecise-- MD and DO degrees are but two of many doctoral degrees.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be true in the United States, but in other countries its not necessarily the case (for example Australia and New Zealand). There is no MD, DO, DDS or DMD in many countries. In fact, dentists earn a Bachelor Degree in most countries. Is this not an article on Dentistry throughout the world, not just the United States?

Admittedly, I speak from my perspective as a resident of the United States; a dentist is a doctor in the U.S, and I cannot comment on the situation in other countries. Perhaps this is simply a matter of custom, or perhaps it reflects a difference in the training and/or qualifications of dentists in different countries. I invite anyone to provide additional information...--Mark Bornfeld DDS 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ľ ľ Ň: As a resident of Canada, a Dentist is a Doctor. While the British system worldwide gives out Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS, BChD) or Bachelor of Medicine (MB) degrees, here in North America we are bestowed an undergraduate Doctoral degree (DDS or DMD). The word "Doctor" means "Teacher" in Latin, therefore, appropriately given to the PhD's/professors in the not-too-distant past. Only recently, Physicians are designated with that title and the general population's interpretation as such. Charles Lin, DDS, MBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.101.102 (talk • contribs)

In the UK, Dentists are also allowed to call themselves "Doctor", despite it being a "Bachelor Degree" I'd imagine it's the same in most other Countries outside of the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.101.178 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dentistry in Australia

The comment has been posted the "The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement."

I would have to agree, and wondered if any of the contributors to this section can suggest a way in which unbiased commentary could be sourced to replace it. Would it be appropriate for the Australian Dental Council or Australian Dental Association to contribute to this?

This is true. I propose there are three choices here:

• Remove all the detailed information regarding those three universites - It seems like pretty useless information anyway.
• Or add information for the remaining three universites, and make it NPOV thereby removing the advertising. By talking aobut only 3 of the 6 universities, it looks even more like an advertisement
• The third option is to add generalised information regarding Dental education in Australia (i.e general information that is true for all the universities). We would remove all the biased stuff that currently exists. This would be far more relevent and would be more encyclopedic and NPOV would be easier to maintain.

I like the third option. Billyb 08:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! Yesterday's version seems like advertisement. In Wikipedia, Advertisement is not allowed as much as No Original Research. Well, That's good idea to move all of advertisements. But I think that Dentistry in Austria is already mentioned in the article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertisment it may seem like, and it should be cleaned up i agree. But all of those universities and the respective dentistry courses are run by the same organisiation, that being the Australian Federal Government.

A query regarding adding a site link to the page "dentistry"

Hi My name is Jules Katz. I have created an online dental directory for Europe.

EuroDentists.

The only one of it's kind.

The site is free for people to find good quality, economical dental work in Europe.

The site is

www.eurodentists.eu

I had added a link on Wikipedia, under dentistry, under external links, at the bottom of the page.

Can you confirm if this will be of use to your members please and how i added the link was ok please. As i think it was removed.

I emailed Wikipedia and they kindly replied.

They said i should please post on the discussion page of the article so that i and other editors of the article can discuss its inclusion.

I would also like to write an article relating to European dentistry, and the advantages due to cost and quality, in comparison to other countries.

I find Wikipedia most interesting and was keen to place our site, within yours, to help others find more economical dental options.

Can someone please advise on the best method for EuroDentists being placed within Wikipedia, so individuals can learn more about dental treatments in Europe.

Many thanks

Jules

Jules-- Wikipedia discourages the placement of links that do not serve the goal of contributing relevant information. The intent of a link pointing to a dentist directory is not to convey information about either the practice or profession of dentistry per se, but to provide increased web traffic to a commercial site that promotes individual dental practices. This not only does not contribute value to the article, but also undermines the credibility of article content. The Wikipedia guidelines that apply are as follows:

3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. 4. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.

This is to take nothing away from the value of your site, but just to point out that inclusion here is inappropriate.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dentistry throughout the world

I suggest a split of this section from the main article. It is mainly a list of oraganizations and colleges related to dentistry around the world. At least a consistent formatting of the section is badly needed. -- Szvest 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I think making it into a new article is a great idea. It would reduce the clutter of the article. - Dozenist talk 07:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to it. I was looking for more technical (Medical) information about Dentistry. I dont need a page of information on Dentistry throughout the world. --Phoe6

I support this as well. Dentistry itself, the science of it, is pretty unrelated to that particular section. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I too support this - I was rather disappointed by this page - when looking for information on Dentistry (of a more technical nature), this great long list of more irrelevant content was exactly the opposite of what i wanted. Therefore, I strongly support a move. Martinp23 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Too much info that can be split into another page, making navigation much easier. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support KalevTait 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Support This article should be about Dentistry, not the various education facilities in the world that teach it. Billyb 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Support It would make the page a lot more readable. We have the magic of hypertext, lets use it to make a better article Ashley Payne 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay w/ the dentistry article. I can't tell you as a research scientist how anoying it is to click link after link just to find an article that has nothing relevant to the topic. Keeping it on the main page just makes life easier.

it should be done asap...

The content has been split. Yay! - Dozenist talk 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The title Dentistry around the world should be more appropriately named to World Dentistry Education.. Dentistry around the world would contain information about differences in philosophy and history of dentistry in different countries. however this appears to cover the courses and universities available to become a dentist. Furthermore (sorry to keep harping on about dental auxiliaries) dentistry education.... seeing as this is a dentistry page not Dentist page, should logically also cover auxiliary schools, a mamoth boring task which illustrates how boring this section can be. Bouncingmolar 12:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dental Organisations

I am also happy that World dentistry has been split. I would like to extend this logic to Dental organisations as well. I feel that this adds significant bloat to the dentistry page and perhaps the page may become small after this proposed edit, but perhaps this could be replaced with some more relevant content ;) (Bouncingmolar 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Article rating

I think clearly the importance of the article is "Top." Please, do not make me explain why. It is more than evident. Come on, the topic and the article share the same name! :-P And I would consider the quality of this article to be a "B". I do not think it would be considered a Good Article. References are needed. It also feels like some information is missing. On such a broad topic, you would think the article would be longer. - Dozenist talk 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the definition of dentistry in the american heritage dictionary, I think that the title dentistry does not adequately describe the content. As it stands it should be called Dentist not dentistry. This article focuses too much on dentists. Dentistry is also performed by the many Dental Auxiliaries as well. -Bouncingmolar 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

• New topic: Dentist training - information about becoming a dentist should be excluded from the introduction and be moved to a section such as Becoming a dentist or Dentist training, as dds and american specific titles have no relevance to the subject title dentistry
  • this page should be nonspecific to country ie america. American registration and dentistry should come under the heading, dentistry in other countries. which may need to be retitled to something along the lines of 'dentistry education' (world can be omitted as it would be obvious by the subheadings that it is divided into region.)
• Dentist = Dentistry? Since Dentistry also covers Dental Auxiliaries and dental research, redirecting dentist to this page is perhaps either inapropriate, or dentistry needs its own page and this one should be called dentist, as this page should also include information about the other facets of dentistry other than dentists.
• New topic: The future of dentistry - to discuss research in dentistry or current trends?
• reorganising the order of topics: I think history should go at the top
• Delete Related dental topics. This section seems irrelevant to the topic dentist. It is just a long list of anything dental, people are able to look at the dentistry category. Also the list is not complete and if it was, it would take up miles of scroll bar. -Bouncingmolar 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the section on dental research? Does the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Dental Research [2] have any information on the news articles about growing new teeth?

"Smile! A new Canadian tool can re-grow teeth say inventors" 6-28-06. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton filed for U.S. patents in June 2006. His (Tarek El-Bialy, a new member of the university's dentistry faculty) research was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. With the help of Jie Chen (an engineering professor and nano-circuit design expert) and Ying Tsui (another engineering professor) the initial massive handheld device was shrunk to fit inside a person's mouth. It is still at the prototype stage, but the trio expects to commercialize it within two years, Chen said. The tool operates on low-intensity pulsed ultrasound technology. [3] [4] Larry R. Holmgren 04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Growth modification of the mandible with ultrasound in baboons: A preliminary report" American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 130, Issue 4, October 2006, Pages 435.e7-435.e14. Tarek El-Bialy, Ali Hassan, Tarik Albaghdadi, Hamed A. Fouad and Abdel Raouf Maimani

"Repair of orthodontically induced root resorption by ultrasound in humans." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 126, Issue 2, August 2004, Pages 186-193. Tarek El-Bialy, Iman El-Shamy and Thomas M. Graber

"Effect of ultrasound on rabbit mandibular incisor formation and eruption after mandibular osteodistraction." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Volume 124, Issue 4, October 2003, Pages 427-434. Tarek H. El-Bialy, Abd El-Moneim Zaki and Carla A. Evans [5] Larry R. Holmgren 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could this be an application or use of tissue "harvested" from aborted human fetuses? Larry R. Holmgren 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Missing teeth section of [6] Larry R. Holmgren 05:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a Separate 'Dentist' page

I propose we create a separate Dentist page. Dentistry definition (in article)=

the art and science of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of conditions, diseases, and disorders of the oral cavity, the maxillofacial region, and its associated structures as it relates to human beings

Dentistry should be about Dental Science. At the moment it is about Dentists. If it is contains information about dentists it should also contain information about other faculties of dentistry; dental auxiliary's/dental researchers as they also practice 'dentistry'.

Logic for proposal: veterinarian is separate to veterinary science. Therefore, Dentist should be separate to Dental science/Dentistry -Bouncingmolar 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Student Enquiry

Hi, I am very curious about what it would be like studying dentistry at the tertiary level (we call that university in New Zealand). At the moment I am currently enrolled in a finance degree (a bachelor of commerce) but I also excelled in the sciences at High School, making me wonder what I could use those skills for. Visiting the dentist the other day, we got into a very interesting converstion about what his job was like. I don't know if I will be happy in this particular career choice, but it something I am concerned that if I do not search into it more, I may regret later. I have very much a business mind, and a past teacher told me my personality reflects someone who is interested in dollar values, and although enjoys science, would not be content with spending masses of time figuring out a brainy maths problem for the simple joy of solving it. This is probably true, but does it mean dentistry would be wrong for me? And what is a good way for me to really get an appreciation of what it would be like without signing away my scholarship for business and the next (quite a few) years of my life? --NZStudent 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As this is not discussion about the dentistry page I think discussion about this should happen on your talk page (Bouncingmolar 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Dentists in popular media

Hi Bouncingmolar, Most of the articles contain references to the popular media references. I dont know why there should not be such a section in an article about dentists. The Yada Yada is an episode of Seinfeld that has a thread based on dentist. I dont know why it was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotolstoy (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

oh right you are! Sorry, add it back inBouncingmolar 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Hola, Does anyone know how much an avredge dentist makes a year?

Adios, Bobithry 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In which part of the world? Figma 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me think o yeah te US!!!!!!!

Bobithry 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First Dental School?

---

This article sites the first dental school to be in Maryland. from 1840. But there was a very small dental school operating in Bainbridge, Ohio, as early as 1828. The School in Baltimore may well be the oldest still in operation, and certainly much larger, but it cannot be called the first one in the world, or even the U.S.
http://www.heartlandscience.org/medhs/dental.htm

Unless there is some other criteria I fail to see, it would seem this small section need be corrected.

Related dental topics cull

I think this section is not needed. The Category of Dentistry can easily be used to find any of these articles. I say it should be removed.Bouncingmolar 04:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits

This page needs work - for a start I moved the big list of orgainizations to List of dental organizations not because I like lists but because it was dominating the contents of the page. I also edited out some of the external links: I think peer review journals could go here but these seemed very advertising heavy sites. Complain if anyone wants them back Revatim 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup

This article requires extensive cleaning up, throughout. Almost all quotations and information and about the history of dentistry are unsourced, and given that this is a very broad topic, these claims should be relatively easy to cite, one would think --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

There is a merge proposal for this article into odontology. I am against merging dentistry into odontology and would prefer either keeping the two articles separate or merging odontology into dentistry. Odontology is the "study" aspect of dentistry, but dentistry also includes prevention and treatment. On the other hand, I am not exactly sure what the odontology article should have, but maybe the initial editors of that article may have an idea. In the meantime, keeping the two articles separate seem like the most sensible solution. - Dozenist talk 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

vote against merge from this wikipedian Ashley Payne (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Odontology has since been merged into Dentistry, and is now a redirect. Avruchtalk 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tooth Picture Caption

What tooth is shown in the picture of a "Sagittal section of a tooth". (Same applies to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth where the picture also appears) Stephanwehner (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a generic molar rather than a particular tooth. --78.86.137.221 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The roots curve distally, and the non-existance of the distobuccal cusp, in addition to it appearing to have a box occusal outline, indicates that it is either the left lower second (more likely) or third molar (#17 or #18 by the universal numbering system). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.77.151 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apecoectomy

Do we have a WP article about Apecoectomy? Badagnani (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct spelling seems to be Apicoectomy which redirects to Root End Surgery. Dirac66 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

POV ARTICLE

Several articles have clearlt stated that Pakistan has been home to tooth drilling for 900 years so why isnt pakistan mentioned in the history lesson and why even mention India when it had nothing to do with dentistry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168308/

check the source and correct the pro india bias on this article and acknowledge pakistans role in dentistry you islamophobes.

Pakistan / India -- emotional edit warring

Recent reverting makes it sensible to try to achieve consensus here on the Talk page, rather than to continue reverting back and forth in the article.

The first paragraph of the History section now says (my emphasis):

Evidence of dentistry has been found in teeth dating from around 7000 BC to 5500 BC.[2][3] The teeth, showing evidence of holes from dental drills, were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization in Ancient Pakistan.[4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] Evidence of this belief has also been found in Egypt, Japan, Mexico and China[6] and in Pakistan.

Ref#2, BBC in April 2006, says: "Stone age people in Pakistan were using dental drills made of flint 9,000 years ago, according to researchers. Teeth ... in Mehgarh in the country's Baluchistan province..."

Ref#3, MSNBC in April 2006, says: "...the method presumably used in Pakistan to drill teeth 9,000 years ago."

Ref#2 and 3 are reporting on research reported in Nature the same month, Ref #4, which says "...eleven drilled molar crowns from nine adults discovered in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan..." The researchers are, typically, more careful than the journalists. They don't suggest that the drilling happened "in Pakistan", which didn't exist, but that the teeth were found there.

Ref#5 doesn't visit the subcontinent at all.

Ref#6 says: "The medical historians of ancient India, Egypt, Japan and China also make reference to the worm as the cause of tooth-ache." (Pakistan is not mentioned in this interesting document from 1990; neither is Mexico.)

If one follows the link to Indus Valley Civilization, one finds that it primarily was in Pakistan, extending into India and other areas.

My suggestion for a "final" version of this paragraph is:

Evidence of ancient dentistry has been found in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan. Teeth dating from around 7000 BC to 5500 BC show evidence of holes from dental drills, according to a report in Nature in 2006. The teeth were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization.[2][3][4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries[5] and as late as the 1300s AD Guy de Chauliac, the great surgeon of the middle ages, still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay. Evidence of this belief has also been found in ancient India, Egypt, Japan, and China.[6]

I believe that this version correctly reflects what is found in the sources. Mexico can be added back in, if a reference is cited. Objections? --Hordaland (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

anon ip is a troll, changing India->Pakistan in many articles, he'll eventually be blocked or go away.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

(ec) I left a comment on anon's talk page, pointing out that reverting SineBot's addition of a signature to the islamophobe comment above is a no-no. My comment is here. --Hordaland (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is our anon 86.158.239.4 or 86.162.69.108 or both? or more? --Hordaland (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hordaland's version is more neutral. However I would recommend a slight modification. There's no need to state "according to a report in Nature", because the reference should be provided as an in-line citation. I don't think that Guy de Chauliac should be described as "the great surgeon of the middle ages". It's not neutral. Also, the fourth sentence should be split. I recommend: "A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] As late as the 1300s AD Guy de Chauliac, a surgeon of the middle ages, still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay." Axl (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(EditConflict)

1. Referring to Nature in the text is unnecessary; you are right about that. (I was trying to get the year 2006 in there; I'll replace it with "has recently been found".)
2. "the great surgeon of the middle ages" is a direct quote from the ref; should perhaps be identified as such. Can I put the whole sentence in quotes, without saying in the text who wrote it?
3. Again, you are very right about splitting the tooth worm sentence! Thanks.

Revised suggestion:

Evidence of ancient dentistry has recently been found in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan. Teeth dating from around 7000 to 5500 BC show evidence of holes from dental drills. The teeth were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization.[2][3][4] A Sumerian text from 5000 BC describes a "tooth worm" as the cause of dental caries.[5] Evidence of this belief has also been found in ancient India, Egypt, Japan, and China. "The legend of the worm is also found in the writings of Homer, as well as the great surgeon of the middle ages, Guy de Chauliac (1300 to 1368 A.D.), who still espoused the belief that worms caused dental decay."[6] The legend of the worm is also found in the writings of Homer, and as late as the 1300s AD the surgeon Guy de Chauliac still promoted the belief that worms cause tooth decay.[6]

--Hordaland (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Revised --Hordaland (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Hordaland

Thank you. I think I'll wait a couple of days in case of further remarks, before putting my latest suggested paragraph into the article. --Hordaland (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Quotations#When not to use quotations. I think that a summary of the quote would be better. The comment about "the great surgeon of the middle ages" would be appropriate for de Chauliac's article, but not for this generic article about dentistry. Axl (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Hordaland's suggestions, put it in asap, I'll revert to that if need be instead of current version.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you. Your latest revision is both accurate and neutral. Axl (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote paragraph as per above. (Wish I could charge by the hour for this :-)) Thanks for all the help! --Hordaland (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indus Valley

its pretty pathetic that its called ancient india indus valley is based mostly in pakistan get this anti pakistan and pro india bias out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.69.108 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "Indus Valley Civilization" should be re-named the "Pakistan Valley Civilization"? Axl (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

and are you suggesting indus valley should be named Indian Valley Civilisation its pretty common sense stuff when you considers that all the main citys of the indus valley are in pakistan it should be ancient pakistan not india thats a totally different country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.69.108 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I understand you. It's ironic that Ancient Pakistan redirects to Indus Valley Civilization. Ancient India can refer to different times/places depending upon the context. "Ancient Pakistan" is no more accurate than "Ancient India". In my opinion, it's better to leave the sentence as: "The teeth, showing evidence of holes from dental drills, were found in people of the Indus Valley Civilization." Any reader who wants more information about the Indus Valley Civilization can easily follow the link. Axl (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh sure India and Pakistan are so totally different countries, but seriously the Indus valley civilisation is one of the forerunners of nearly all the major ethic and cultural groups of the Indian sub-continent, hence is often referred to as Ancient India.([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "125years" :
  • Gelbier, Stanley. [http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v199/n7/full/4812875a.html 125 Years of Developments in Dentistry]. British Dental Journal (2005); 199, 470-473. Page accessed [[December 11]], [[2007]]. The 1879 register is referred to as the "Dental Register".
  • Gelbier, Stanley. [http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v199/n7/full/4812875a.html 125 Years of Developments in Dentistry]. British Dental Journal (2005); 199, 470-473. Page accessed [[December 11]], [[2007]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 28 August 2008, at 17:08.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Dentistry".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Dentistry

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.