Talk:Dentin hypersensitivity

Pathophysiology theories

Hey Lesion, received a response back from an endo colleague regarding the etiology of the pain after asking if it was a mild pulpitis,

No ! Dentinal sensitivity is the branstrom theory of fluid movement inside the Dentinal tubules and that causes firing if the nerves ending in the outer layer of the pulp. Theoricly[sic] pulp is healthy. Now repetitive and constant stimulus can be etiology for a future pulpitis. Check.[sic] Bramstron

S.Abitbol, Endodontist, email communications

With that info, I found a review at pubmed pmid 22238734. Will also post to talk:Toothache Ian Furst (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I was finding in the sources too. E.g.:

Majority of literature reviews dealing with this clinical condition [...] consider that the sharp pain is actually the normal pulpal response to the exposed dentine.[1]

Therefore, I disagree with placing content about dentin hypersensitivity in a section called "pulpitis". If all pulpal causes of toothache to be merged into one section, it cannot be called "pulpitis" for accuracy... suggest "pulpal" instead. Lesion (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reference 10 ( Schmidlin, Patrick R.; Sahrmann, Phlipp (30 December 2012). "Current management of dentin hypersensitivity". Clinical Oral Investigations 17 (S1): 55–59. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0912-0.), I don't see how that article shows abrasive toothpaste contributes to the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.217.10.85 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not looked at the source in question, but abrasive toothpastes are a recognized cause of sensitvity. They cause tooth wear (technically, abrasion) with loss of tooth substance and resultant loss of thickness of enamel which "insulates" the dentin-pulp complex against stimulae. 92.40.94.197 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy as "treatment"

Homeopathy is *not* a treatment, whatever the source may say. WP:FRINGE/PS applies. Compare with ArbCom on Pseudoscience. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:34B7:290F:2E09:1556 (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see where homeopathy is discussed. And depends what you mean by treatment. Regardless of proven efficacy or lack thereof, if enouh sources mention that some people choose to treat a condition in a certain way, then it is notable to be discussed in the encyclopedia entry. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed as a "treatment" in the infobox, even listing the "substance" as "Propolis". The source lists "homeopathy" under "CLASSIFICATION OF DESENSITIZING AGENTS: II. On the basis of mechanism of action." But there's no further reference or discussion (just like there isn't any in the infobox). It just mentions two words. That's way too weak to meet wiki standards for medical topics. And further, it's well established scientific consensus that H. is placebo. A remedy 'not containing' "Propolis" is not a "desensitizing agent" and doesn't have a 'mechanism of action' as such. There's really no need to flesh out pseudoscientific "treatments" based on two words in a source, so the omission seems fine by me. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:1974:D126:2D47:F7FF (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]