Talk:Tooth decay

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tooth decay article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Tooth decay was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 6, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
February 14, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Dentistry Top‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Top‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Tooth decay.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Case Western Reserve University/ANTH 302 Darwinian Medicine (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article was created or improved by the University of Dundee Oral Health Wikipedia Group in 2016.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Alsheik4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single mention of Xylitol?

It is effective in reducing mutans streptococci.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232036/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.130.106 (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing "Etymology and usage" section

In its current form, this section is mostly unsupported by references – and also is confusing: on the one hand it talks about caries being a singular noun (which it is!) taking singular verb inflections (e.g., caries is caused, not caries are caused), but on the other hand it talks about it being a plurale tantum word (which I don't believe it is). Are there any good references (ideally open and not hidden behind a paywall) that would resolve this and could be easily referenced in the section? cherkash (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is borrowed from Latin along with the Latin grammatical rules for the fifth declension of nouns. Therefore, as with other borrowed Latin nouns of the same declension (e.g. series, species), the singular and plural forms are identical (e.g. "a series of events" & "many series of events") and it is not a plurale tantum. However, I agree that "dental caries" ought to be treated as singular because it is conceived of as 'a process' both in scientific literature and in professional jargon. Some people use it casually in a plural form (e.g. "there are caries on multiple teeth") but in this context "caries" seems to be incorrectly shortened from "carious lesions"--it would be more correct to say either "there is caries on multiple teeth" or "there are carious lesions on multiple teeth." Unfortunately I'm not aware of an authoritative reference on this either. Kevin13523 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Factors

I think asthma should be added to the risk factors, as having asthma decreases saliva production and therefore contributes to tooth decay. Anonymous Gnostic (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written

such an essential topic shout get more attention. there are many contradictions in the article. also the order is quite horrendous. please please if you know anything about this subject try to contribute to make something half normalBentzion T. (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]