Talk:Human tooth

Dental care

If you don't brush your teeth after one week they will be white. It is scientifically proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.24.248 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Someone should add something about dental care under a new header, something like: brush (preferably) twice a day, and use dental floss to get plaque out from between your teeth.

Maybe even some tips on how to brush and use floss, and something about electric toothbrushes.

maybe a new page on dental care? -- Tarquin 13:27 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... the link to canine now points to a page on family Canidae, the dogs. Should we install a disambig page, even though one of the two ambiguous objects does not yet exist? Shimmin 12:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

yup. done :-) -- Tarquin 13:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Teeth are also bones in the human body, although they are not known for being bones, they actually are. Some people say the human tooth is made up of 4 different tissues being enamel. This is partly correct as teeth have also been scientifically proven to be more bone than enamel.

i couldnt figure out how to add a new headline, so ill just use this one. i think there should be a section for death, what happens to the teeth. Do they rot? Do the mortonists know if the teeth had been taken care of when the thing was alive? interesante eh and i have no clue but there should be a section on it!!!! ---- anonymous

-- this would be under Forensic dentistry. A person can be identified from teeth vs dental records alone... You can certainly appreciate how well someone took care of their teeth after death. Teeth last longer than any other tissue in the body, principally because they are "designed" to withstand the rigorous elements during life! Seriously, they are the most mineralized tissue in the body, so there is little organic matter to feed bacteria (which along with fungi, normally cause rot), and with no more saliva + food washing around in your mouth after you die, there is very little means for even cariogenic bacteria to survive. This is the reason anthropologists know so much about teeth.

However, I was very disturbed to see this horid article linked from the bottom of the page: "An article on the use of human tooth used as a neolithic pendant." Someone with the authority, please take it off. The claims are almost all false: that is a lower molar (probably 2nd), and there is no sign whatsoever that it was worn for a long time - only the hole indicates this (the author makes the claim that it is an upper tooth & that because the [distal] root is broken it must have been worn as jewelery... he needs to do some extractions). DoctaDontist (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hello, I experienced a painful tooth decay. I have uploaded a picture of my tooth before and after operation. A root canal couldn't be done, so the tooth has been broken to four pieces and cleaned out. (Probably one of the biggest pain I have ever felt in my life)

However the picture is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Toothdecay.jpg . If there is an expert at the subject please use it. If anybody thinks it should be presented on this page , add it then :) I'm just photographing it. -- Nerval 3:50 AM : 21 Jan 2004

Sympathies. I hope the swelling (to the right in the picture) goes down soon. Perhaps other pictures as healing takes place? Great contribution! Mr. Jones 22:22, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Surely no problem, actually pictures were taken' with a Digital SLR on Macro mode. It has Carl Zeiss lens, it provides very high clarity and surely vividity. The hard part was to place the cam on my mouth and taking the picture without breathing. (Macro settings takes several seconds, probably 15 seconds at total) From today I'll continue to take several shots, hopefully it will be useful to someone. I was really sad that my dentist had to show me xrays and explain the tooth on a toy. Our techonology is advanced in half to take a picture of the whole mouth. I'll continue posting :) Nerval

Here's a dental X-ray image (zh-min-nan:Image:Chiu-khi_X-ray.jpg). It seems a more typical example of dental x-ray, at least for typical problems. Unfortunately it's a bit small. A-giau 21:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Tricuspids?

On the talk page for tricuspid, which currently mentions only the heart, someone mentions that there are also teeth called tricuspids. Is this true? It's not mentioned on teeth, so I haven't done anything to disambiguate. Someone with more knowledge of teeth should look into this... Tbutzon 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cuspid teeth are also known as canines or tooth #_3 in the international description. Bicuspids are also known as premolars, or teeth #_4 & #_5. Lower 2nd premolars often have three cusps (two different types of 2 cusp variants are also common), so if someone wanted to they could call them tricuspids. 1st upper molars have 5 cusps ~2/3 of the time, else 4. 2nd upper molars usually have 4. 1st lower molars usually have 5. 2nd lower molars usually have 4. 3rd molars (wisdom teeth) are profoundly variable, ranging commonly from 3-5 on the lower, and usually having 3 on the upper. DoctaDontist (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Count of teeth

Does the first set have 20 teeth and the second 12, or does the second have 32 ? Do all the 20 teeth fall off ? Jay 14:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk

• Tooth answers this pretty well, but perhaps you might recommend improvements to the language? It says, "The second, permanent set is formed between the ages of six and twelve years. A new tooth forms underneath the old one, pushing it out of the jaw. " In other words, the 20 "baby teeth" are replaced with permanent teeth, and 8-12 more come in. --jpgordon{gab} 22:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The normal primary (pediatric) human dentition consists of 20 teeth, while the secondary (adult) dentition normally consists of 32 teeth. However, not every set of teeth, either primary or secondary, conforms to the norm. There are occasional instances of extra teeth (called "supernumerary") while there can also be congenital absence of teeth (aplasia, or partial anodontia). There are relatively frequent instances where a permanent tooth never forms, and the preceding primary tooth is often retained well into adulthood.

The permanent teeth erupt (i.e., make their appearance) most commonly between the ages of six and twelve years of age. However, embryologic development of these teeth begins much earlier. The first permanent molar begins to form prior to birth, and begins to mineralize at around the time of birth. This has significance, since there are environmental stressors encountered in infancy that can affect the morphology and health of the permanent teeth. --
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 19:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents. The "Human teeth" section mostly refers to an adult mouth as having 32 teeth. However, near the top there is a misleading sentence: "Apart from this another 8-12 teeth grow." I think the article should make this more explicit, but I'm no expert and can't be much help editing. Thoughts? -- Kerttie (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt to clear that part up. (The 8-12 refers to how many wisdom teeth erupt but this is mentioned later on in the article).

Tooth care

I'm putting this here because there's no way I can make a useful or informed contribution to the article. I am 21, and have been brushing my teeth on average once a month for at least eight years. Every time I go to the dentist (twice a year) I have either perfect teeth or mild gingivitis. I drink little soda, instead usually drinking tap water (probably fluoridated), milk, and orange juice. Maybe something should be added to the tooth care section saying that regular brushing is not necessary in some cases. I hope some sort of study has been done on this. --SPUI 21:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, some of the stuff in Tooth decay/Worse probably belongs in Tooth care. --SPUI 21:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regular brushing is not necessary in some cases? True, but that's like saying it's only necessary to wear a motorcycle helmet when you're going to crash, or it's ok to smoke cigarettes if you're not going to develop lung cancer. There is nothing wrong with living a type of life style that reduces unnecessary risk at minimal expenditure of effort. You'll need to take my word for it that oral hygiene accrues benefits that are increasingly in evidence as you progress past the age of 21. Even while you are as young as you are, having a clean mouth does confer some social benefit you can enjoy now... --
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 20:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

yes well i'm 19, i never brush, and i've never had so much as a toothache. perhaps the toothcare article should promote more of a npov 'dental experts suggest' view, as opposed to the universal view that's pushed on me so often. i'm not suggesting dentistry is a conspiracy to make money by faking health advice, but....

Obviously, you aren't experiencing difficulty with your teeth because they haven't worn down severely yet. Well, I hope you come back and visit this page in ten to fifteen years and think of how stupid you were for ruining your teeth for life. For the rest of us, proper hygene is not a matter of POV. Food-producers make money from their business, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't eat (something you probably won't be having much fun doing in a very short time).

A tooth ache at the age of 19 is bad news. Those sorts of problems can easily be avoided by brushing (correcltly). If you don't start now, it'll get worse. The last thing you want is to have to replace teeth with things like crowns and dentures, which don't give anywhere near the satisfaction as a set of healthy natural teeth. You should take out 5 minutes of your day to increase your oral hygiene, it'll pay off. Billyb 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey 19, do you know SPUI? As they say in the investment world, "...past performance is no guarantee of future results." You cannot assume your dental luck won't run out. Unless you're a fan of dentistry (I'm afraid I'm in the minority on this), you'll prefer oral hygiene to tooth decay or gum disease. Your mouth is not the appropriate place to conduct a scientific experiment... --
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 20:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the section about brushing to be a bit odd and out-of-place. Not that it mentions brushing, but that it quibles about what brushing is REALLY for, and talks about the angles and what-not. Even the article on Oral hygiene doesn't do this. Ought we to clean it up a bit, make it less detailed...after all, an article dedicated to brushing didn't even go that deep. Johnashby 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't brush following sugar?

• From article: "Brushing teeth immediately after eating sugar is not recommended, because sugar softens the enamel, which can then be damaged by brushing. Better to wait half an hour after eating sugary foods before brushing."

I think we can clarify this.

1. Does rinsing one's mouth with water or milk following meals lessen this damage caused by brushing?

2. This advice seems to conflict with an assertion in the dental cavities article: "Plaque and bacteria begin to accumulate within 20 minutes after eating, the time when most bacterial activity occurs." Does the first half hour following meals not contain significant bacterial activity?--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sugar does not in itself soften tooth enamel. A demineralization of enamel (a process assumed to be a necessary initiation stage in the development of tooth decay) occurs as a result of acidic waste products from the bacterial metabolism of sugar. This demineralization can be prevented by either:

• 1. Physically removing the sugar before it can be assimilated by the bacteria in the dental plaque;
• 2. Physically removing the bacterial plaque before the sugar can be metabolized to organic acids;
• 3. Chemically buffering or neutralizing the acidic products of bacterial metabolism, thereby preventing the micro-environment on the surface of tooth enamel from reaching the degree of acidity necessary to demineralize enamel (i.e., a pH below about 5.5)

Number 1 and 2 could involve either rinsing, or more definitive methods of oral hygiene such as brushing or flossing. #3 is the mechanism by which some foods, such as dairy, can inhibit the initiation of tooth decay. --
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 21:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: This passage in the text appears to be due to a misreading/misunderstanding of a recommendation put forth by a few different dentists and dental associations. Unfortunately, as it's written here it appears to be wrong and misleading.

The original (official) recommendation appears to do with eating foods which are high in acid, not sugar (while sugar is eventually converted into acid by bacteria in the mouth, this is not what is being referred to). Many naturally acidic foods (such as carbonated beverages) can lower the pH of the mouth as soon as they are eaten, leading to the immediate demineralization of the enamel, which softens it. If the teeth are brushed in this state, the brushing can actually damage the softened enamel. It is therefore recommended that the pH level be corrected and the teeth be given an opportunity to remineralize before brushing, to reduce the likelihood of the brushing itself damaging the teeth (as noted, this will happen naturally over time due to the saliva in the mouth, and can be helped by rinsing. Some other foods (such as milk/cheese) can also actively promote raising the pH and absorption of minerals back into the teeth).

So this passage actually should say "Brushing teeth immediately after eating acidic foods is not recommended, because acid softens the enamel, which can then be damaged by brushing. Better to wait half an hour after eating acidic foods before brushing." It would probably also be a good idea to mention rinsing, as well as suggesting eating acidic foods mixed with other foods (particularly neutralizing foods), such as drinking soft drinks with meals instead of by themselves.

Of course, it is also arguable that all of this really belongs somewhere like Oral hygiene instead of here anyway..

--Foogod

Certainly, I do not know everything, but I have not heard this recommendation before. Can we get a specific ada source or something of that nature to back up the statement? It is so counterintuitive that further explanation would be nice to have in case people would want to look into the matter. -Dozenist talk 03:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of the recommendation not to brush until 30mins have passed since vomitting or gastric reflux, but not after eating acidic foods. I didn't think acidic foods were acidic enough to cause that much dental erosion (unless consumed regularly and over a long period of time, example, wine drinkers and coca-cola addicts). What kind oo pH range does acidic foods fall into? 3-4?Billyb 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I should have cited my references for the statement I made above.. A quick google search pulled up several sources referencing this phenomenon/recommendation (which is a specific case of what is generally termed "dental erosion"). The most notable of these are the British Nutrition Foundation (http://www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp?siteId=43&sectionId=649&subSectionId=321&parentSection=299&which=1 (see the portion of the page on "Dental Erosion")), British Dental Health Foundation (http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk/faqs/leafletdetail.php?LeafletID=33), an ADA article (found on Colgate's site) (http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/OC/Information/ADA.cvsp?ADA_Article=Article_2005_02_ADADietDentalHealth), as well as a US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine brochure (http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dhpw/oralfitness/dental%20erosion.pdf), and miscellaneous other individual dentists and smaller health organizations.

The argument presented also seems fairly logical to me given what is generally known about acidity, demineralization of tooth enamel, and the physical effects of brushing.

(on the other hand, it should be noted that I could find nothing at all anywhere to back up the "don't brush after sugar" statement, suggesting to me that it is almost certainly wrong)

--Foogod 22:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cross section image

I saw a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures for a cross-section of a tooth, so I made one. I placed it rather randomly in the article — move as appropriate. The image can be found at Image:ToothSection.jpg. Please feel free to critique — it's (relatively) easy to edit images. — Asbestos | Talk 01:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caries/cavities

Are Caries the British spelling for Cavities or something? EvilPhoenix talk 10:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

More like the technical/Latin term

No, no, no and no. Caries is the disease, while cavities are the signs of the disease. In medicine, a sign, unlike a symptom, is something that can be observed by an outside observer who is not the patient. There is a big difference between "caries" and "cavities".

Caries is the abstract problem, the disease you have in your mouth, and the noun "caries" is usually a non-count noun, which means they usually don't use it in the plural grammatical number, unless, for example, you're talking about different types of caries. The noun "caries" is derived from the Latin noun "caries" (same spelling, but different pronunciation), which is a noun of the fourth type of declension of the Latin language.

That's incorrect. The word caries in Latin is a fifth declension noun (like facies for 'appearance', spes for 'hope', and res for 'thing'). The fourth declension nouns, which you alluded to, belong to a class of nouns known as the u- class while the fifth declension nouns belong to a class of nouns known as the e- class. For what it's worth, fifth declension nouns are almost overwhelmingly feminine. See Latin for more details. The singular and plural of fifth declension nouns look alike; that's why some English speakers think that caries is a non-count noun, but the fact is, the noun takes a different kind of adjective depending on whether it is singular or plural. E.g., caries gravida (a state of heavy tooth decay) and caries leves (states of light tooth decay). Look at the associated adjective to see if the noun is singular or plural.

"Caries" in Latin and "caries" in English are usually both abstract nouns, which means they describe something that is abstract and immaterial.

"Cavities", on the other hand, are the concrete medical signs you see. They are the holes you see in the enamel or dentin of teeth. The noun "cavity", unlike the English noun "caries", is usually a count noun and concrete. They use to use the plural of the noun, "cavities", which means "holes". But in Latin, the Latin noun "cavitas", from which the English noun "cavity" is derived, was originally an abstract noun with the "ending" -itas, which was an ending usually used to form a quality noun (nomen qualitatis) from an adjective. In this case, the noun cavitas was derived from cavus, which meant "hollow". So cavitas originally meant "the quality of being hollow" or "hollowness". But then again, in addition to "hollowness", it came to mean "hole". That is the concrete thing, instead of the "hollowness", which is the abstract property of something that is hollow. But again, that's what it meant originally, but the meanings of words in languages change through time.

At least when it comes to teeth, the noun cavity usually means the hole or pit you can observe or perceive in a tooth, and it is a medical sign of caries, which is the disease instead of the sign or signs of the actual disease.

Just in case, the noun cavitation, which means the formation of cavities, does not mean the disease, caries, nor the cavities themselves.

My synoptic summary:

caries	the disease
cavity	a medical sign of the disease
cavities	multiple medical signs of the disease
cavitation	the formation of one cavity or of multiple cavities
to cavitate	to form one cavity or multiple cavities

2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is nit-picking, but dental caries does not always result in a tooth cavitation, or "cavity." Caries is indeed a disease process (more commonly termed "tooth decay") involving the hard tissues of a tooth (enamel, dentin, and cementum). It is a complex process, which involves progressive demineralization of the calcific structure of the tooth, followed by infiltration of bacteria-- most prominently, streptococcus mutans. The chief physical change that results from caries is a softening of the hard tissues. Whether cavitation occurs depends on the physical environment to which the carious tissue is subjected. It is not uncommon to find extensive caries in a tooth without obvious changes in its external contours-- i.e., without a "cavity."

--
Mark Bornfeld DDS
dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Caries as a weapon of war

Among the very first few missions on the space shuttle, the caries bacterium was cultured in zero gravity to see how well it could propagate in space. The results, as I understand it, showed conclusively that zero gravity has no effect on the caries bacterium.

Have there been any updates on the culturing of this bacterium?

There was also some talk about gene splicing the influenza virus into caries bacterium but that was more in line with science fiction than science fact. Viruses are small, being bits and pieces of DNA or RNA. Bacteria, on the other hand, are quite large. The two are not likely to meet. Still, has there been any progress with an anti-caries vaccination?

There are a multitude of acidogenic bacteria that contribute to the formation of caries, not just one. That is why a successful vaccine has never been developed. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vaccination against dental caries may be possible

Don't be so hasty to rule out a vaccine. See PMID 16729013 (Taubman, 2006, Nat Rev Immunol 6(7):555), or run a PubMed search.[1] Mike Serfas 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Teeth and Joints

In the article it says that teeth are not bones (I agree), but that one of the reasons they are not considered as such is because they do not form joints with the jaw. I'm reading an anatomy and physiology text that says otherwise; am I misreading this text, or does the dental industry not consider gomphoses as articulations (joints)?

By the definition I have of articulation/arthrosis (again, joints) it is a point of contact between two bones, between bone and cartilage, or between bone and teeth.

This point of contact usually utilizes connective tissue, which according to the same text is evident with teeth in the "dense fibrous connective tissue between a tooth and its socket..." called the "periodontal ligament (membrane)."

Anyone care to comment?

I was also interested in a bit of controversy brought up in class over the functional classification of these 'teeth joints' being synarthrotic, or immovable. Apparently there is some discussion about an appropriate (very minimal) amount of movement of teeth within their sockets. My teeth move ever so slightly, but noticeably, and I think it's a good thing that they do, because it gives me that 'nick of time' to back off the 'chew' if I'm going up against something that would break my teeth.

Again, any thoughts?

Thanks, tonya@fairnec.com

Teeth are not bones because the embryological tissue that they arise from is not the same as for bone, despite them sharing a similar structural and chemical makeup as bone. Teeth are derived primarily from ectoderm (with a contribution from ectomesenchyme) whereas bone is mesodermal in origin. Therefore, it is not correct to say that teeth are not bones because they do not form joints with bone. As you correctly point out, a gomphosis is a type of joint. In fact, a professor of mine in dental school had the desire for joints to be redefined to include contact points between teeth, as he felt that the articulation between teeth formed the basis of a joint, despite the lack of connective tissue. Semantics, I know. I will edit this tomorrow to correct the problem.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stupid me, posted before reading the article completely. This has already evidently been changed. BTW, that movement is physiological movement, and can vary between 0.1-0.9mm. Any greater (this is a point of contention - I personally would accept 1mm or even slightly greater in the absence of any other sign of disease, particularly in light of the fact that it may be quite difficult to see increments of 1/10th of a millimetre on an intraoral measuring device) and it begins to be considered pathological - that is that there may be some underlying reason (usually periodontal disease or trauma) for the increased mobility. This movement is achieved by compression of periodontal ligament fibres, which causes fluid movement. The periodontal ligament is essentially a hydrostatic dampener and is designed to dissipate the forces of mastication (chewing) efficiently so as not to cause damage to the underlying bone, or overlying tooth.

That feeling of backing off is actually a reflex. You have little nerve receptors (both proprioceptive - which give you a sense of location of the teeth- and nociceptive - which are pain receptors and tell you when you've really gone too far) that are embedded in the periodontal ligament that start the reflex of telling you when to back off. It is rare to reach this point, the motor program in your brain moderates force and direction of chewing so as to generally prevent overloading of the teeth.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable similarity between the constituents and pathologies of dentine and bone. In fact, bovine dentine is being explored as a possible bone substitute for medical use.(see PMID 17897757) Bear in mind, however, that enamel is a completely different material with a different embryonic origin - in terms of physical location it has more in common with hair and horn than bone, though it has a unique composition. Mike Serfas 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

teaching kids about wikipedia

My 8 year old daughter was keen to add something and learn how Wikipedia works so we took a photo of her 3 baby teeth so far. My idea was to put them on the 'tooth fairy' page as a gift but she firmly said she doesn't believe in the tooth fairy so I added them next to the infant teeth :) Cas Liber 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

hey nify caption to my image. thanks!Cas Liber 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How terribly sweet.--EchetusXe (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Teeth being "pushed" out of the jaw?

Hello there. I was studying anatomy and recently got told that the teeth are not pushed out. The formation of bones can contribute to this fact since the odontoclasts (bone tissue destroying cells) form at the tip of the teeth that is growing, and at base of the deciduous set, making them loose. Either this information is wrong but that is what my textbook said otherwise.

This is not yet known. Any claim about what gets teeth to erupt is speculation / hypothesis. DoctaDontist (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What is permanent bridges?

One treatment is permanent bridges. What is that? 70.55.156.233 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a Tooth

How's this for a definition of a tooth: a highly mineralised functional unit of the dentition? -Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)As provided to me by my Occlusion and Function Instructor in Dental School, Prof. William McDevitt.

Rodents

• Rodents' incisors grow continuously throughout their lives. Their decidous incisors are shed before they are born.

Rodents do not have deciduous teeth. And it's not spelled correctly ;)

Hence I removed it. Tummers 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning there was the incorrect statement that teeth of rodents grow continuous. That's only the incisors for all rodents, and then the molars for some species. I added one ref because I knew it by heart. I will look if I can find some other refs in the near future. Tummers 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What species has continually growing molars?!? DoctaDontist (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Rabbits are incorrectly listed as rodents. "The lagomorphs are the members of the taxonomic order Lagomorpha, of which there are two families, the Leporidae (hares and rabbits), and the Ochotonidae (pikas). The name of the order is derived from the Greek lagos (λαγος, "hare") and morphē (μορφή, "form")." --DiveDownDeep80 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Current Collaboration

To improve the article, a lot of information has been added, moved around, and deleted. Most tooth related articles on wikipedia are human related, and the majority of this article is about human teeth. Previously, there were sentences scattered in the introduction about animal teeth, but I think an entire section on animal teeth is warranted (and not just the current simple bullet points). The article is beginning to look more cohesive and structured, and hopefully an animal-tooth expert will come along to help out. - Dozenist talk 22:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text

See Also links

I fail to see how Conodont and Bruxism are relevant to this article. As far as i can see a conodont is just a worm with teeth, and bruxism is pathological tooth clenching. If they deserve mention than maybe other animals with teeth like turtles etc need to be mentioned.... and other conditions of the teeth. These can be easily accessed via the category pages, therefore i am removing them until they can be justified. Bouncingmolar 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The article is well written, good prose. The lead paragraph is good. References are a bit lacking in some areas; most notably, 'anatomy', 'dentin', 'cementin','pulp', 'periodontum', 'plaque', 'dentures and false teeth'. The 'enamel' section and 'tooth care' sections seem well done and referenced. These can be used as a model for other sections. References may not be quite as important in the sections under 'parts', if the main articles that are being referred to are well referenced (then, this article sort of references that article). But I checked these other articles, and they are mainly start-class, with virtually no references currently.

'Periodontum' probably shouldn't be in its own main section. It seems like this might belong in the 'parts' section.

'Dentures and false teeth' can be expanded, and referenced. No mention of George Washington's teeth (yes, I know the wooden teeth are a myth; might be interested in mentioning).

'Abnormalities of the dentition' seems to be just a list. Some prose would help in this area, since many users may not know what a 'dentition' refers to.

The 'in animals' section could be expanded; more references, write out as prose instead of just a list. What animal has the largest known teeth? the smallest? This might be a common question that people would go to an encyclopedia for, and should probably be covered.

Overall, I'd probably rate this at the upper end of the B-class, but cannot put it at GA-class quite yet, as it's still missing some data and references. Getting close, though! Editors might want to review the good article criteria, as well as [{WP:CITE]].

Good luck! Dr. Cash 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have relisted the article to be a good article nominee. Most of the issues above have been addressed. Sections have been renamed and expanded to be more relevant. References have been littered throughout the article now. There is still no mention of George Washington's teeth, but I figured such information would be more appropriate in the denture article! :-P - Dozenist talk 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I promoted the article as it meets the GA criteria: well-referenced, illustrated, well-organized article. Kudos to the editors, and I encourage them to consider a featured article nomination. NCurse _work 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Third sets of teeth

I remember reading as a child in Ripley's Believe It or Not about someone who supposedly had all their adult teeth kicked out by a horse, but grew a third set of teeth to replace them. Not really expecting to find anything I consulted the Web, and found an interesting set of anecdotes at WikiAnswers about third and even fourth sets of teeth in human beings![2] For those not endowed naturally, apparently there's a company pursuing development of a technique to induce new teeth artifically.[3] I may get around to doing more research and adding a section on this: let me know if there are any good leads you'd like me to pursue. 70.15.116.59 07:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic is hyperdontia, already listed in the tooth abnormalities section. Since it takes many years for a tooth to develop and then to appear in the mouth, the person who "grew" and entire "third set" of teeth would have had those developing in the mouth prior to losing his other teeth. To have an entire third set of teeth and even an entire fourth set of teeth would be very, very rare. Having one extra of a particular type of tooth would not be so surprising. Since that is already mentioned in the article, something as strange as an entire extra set of teeth would be a more appropriate addition in the hyperdontia article. Also note that in this article, there are several systemic disorders listed that present with hyperdontia. - Dozenist talk 10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I had the impression that hyperdontia referred to a larger number of teeth in a set. For example, the article says that "supernumerary teeth in deciduous dentition are less common than in permanent dentition". Usages of this type usually imply that hyperdontic teeth fall into a diphyodont pattern, whereas some of these anecdotes claim that there are actually polyphyodont (polyphydont ?) human beings. I admit, I have a certain sense that I'm hunting for Bigfoot here - I'm hoping that a dental professional who has treated such patients might stumble across this page (ideally a radiology technician who could post a public domain X-ray image, but now I'm delving into fantasy. ;) ) 70.15.116.59 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have seen many extra teeth, usually not more than one or two in a single individual. Usually, if there is an extra tooth found among baby teeth, it is a permanent tooth that has erupted early. I have never seen an entire extra set, or anything close to that, but I have seen many, many extra teeth in people with a systemic disorder, such as cleidocranial dysostosis. In those cases, I have never heard those many other teeth called an "extra set" of teeth. Then again, I have not treated the entire world, nor do I know everything, so I guess anything is possible... ... ...but I would like to see the reference! ;) Just call me skeptical. - Dozenist talk 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll stick references here for now, until I'm convinced I'm not chasing a chimera.

New York Times, Feb. 11, 1910 - "Beverly, N.J.,Feb 10 - Albert Patterson, 50 years of age, is cutting his third set of teeth. The unusual experience is harder for him than when he cut his first set, and he is now under treatment at a local hospital. Patterson lost his second set of teeth, which were perfectly sound and serviceable, when he underwent an operation a year ago for an abscess of the upper jaw." Note that this fits the pattern of two of the anecdotes above, in which the third set appears only after the second set are lost - however, I think the article leaves enough vagueness for an argument that it is some kind of hyperdontia rather than a true complete third set.

New York Times, December 6, 1922 - Briton Rejuvenated at 98: Harry Gardner has his third set of teeth and excellent eyesight. LONDON, Dec. 5 - Harry Gardner turned his ninety-eighth year today, possessed of a third set of teeth and excellent eyesight. A year ago Mr. Gardner was forced to eat soft foods and wear glasses, but the only physical defect from which he now suffers is poor hearing. Physicians say he is beginning to develop new tissue. I'm not sure what to make of the vision claims. Apparently diabetes can change eyeglass prescription (not consistently, though!). Whatever the reason, either the case is fabricated or else the vision change may hint at what triggers the third set to grow.

Physics Forums - short anecdote on forum.

[4] - more forum anecdotes, not very convincing.

[5] - another forum anecdote; another inherited case.

[6] - another genetic case described on a forum, this time from a grandparent, again to replace lost teeth. In this case ONLY lost teeth are replaced. Sounds like a simple Mendelian trait. But the site also claims that Abraham Lincoln was another example, which I'm having much trouble corroborating. A perennial problem for Bigfoot hunters...

JSTOR - can't follow this link, but Google quotes text about a retired dentist growing a third set of teeth.

[7] - Seattle pioneer claimed to be growing third set in 1905, no details.

[8] Cleidocranial dysplasia comes close to a "third set of teeth", but is associated with other odd symptoms, like "living without teeth" between the deciduous and (first) permanent sets. It's still not clear to me whether these extra teeth can wait in reserve until an injury, as has been described in some of the anecdotes.

That's seven screens into the Google search for "third set of teeth"; I'll cap it here for now. It's starting to look common enough that there must be a proper medical description that I'm just missing with poor keyword choice. 70.15.116.59 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about an extra tooth from the usual set of 32 permanent teeth? Or are we talking about an entire 3rd set of teeth following the permanent teeth? I was under the impression we were talking about the latter. Extra teeth happen occasionally, and like I said earlier that condition is called hyperdontia. I have never heard of an entire extra set of teeth. Even cleidocranial dysplasia does not result in an extra 3rd set of teeth. You can see an xray and sometimes there are what may seem like a hundred extra teeth, but they would not erupt nor function like a 3rd set of teeth. The extra teeth would just be considered "extra", as in the expression of hyperdontia. I agree with you so far, the references you have found are not very convincing to the idea of a "third set" of teeth. - Dozenist talk 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

what i heard about was a third set of teeth that comes on in very old age (specifically after 125, from one person). i didn't hear it from the most wiki-reliable sources, one being my girlfriend, and the other being a native american elder. however it provided pause for me because of one specific detail that they each, independently produced; being that, this third set of teeth comes on like a childs. i don't know where my girlfriend had heard it, online no doubt. the elder had personally witnessed these "real fine just like a baby" teeth on his uncle.... age: somewhere over 100. Inforlife (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What I heard about was a woman in her twenties who claimed that she was on her third set of teeth, having lost the second set in her teens, the first set gone at seven, the second set gone at 14. There were no problems with them, to cause her to seek dental care. A lot of native americans have three, not two, sets of teeth, she said. 75.87.130.113 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Me

Okay, Im not sure if this is mentioned but I was wonderring something. I have two weird things about my teeth. The first is the teeth right beside your front teeth on both side(Not sure their name) well, I had my Baby teeth and they didn't get loose. My permanant teeth just protruded from the side of my gums, covering them up. Why is that? The second isn't as weird. I am 13 and I have only lost 5 or 6 teeth, not sure if that is weird but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.16.141 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

i would also like to state that the teeth next to right of my front ones is shaped like a carinove animal tooth.how the blasted did that happened....mabye its because i eat meat more than vegtables...Danuis.5 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tooth colour

No matter how hard I brush my teeth, they always appear to be yellowish instead of white, so shouldn't it say that teeth are yellowish instead of white? Fangusu (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The underlying the bluish white enamel is a bulk of dentin, which is much more yellow due to the organic content. This is why whiteness of teeth corresponds to thickness of enamel DoctaDontist (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Doctadontist

Saliva gradually neutralises the acids which cause the pH of the tooth surface to "rise above" the critical pH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.137.142 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

new sub-chapter required: black stain on teeth

Topic: Black stains caused by dental plaque layer of iron compounds, probably ferric sulfide.

Hint to paper / source: Investigations into Black Extrinsic Tooth Stain by J.S. Reid, J.A. Beeley and D.G. MacDonald J DENT RES 1977; 56; 895

Online available unter URL: http://jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/56/8/895.pdf

Thank you! Dieter Burkhard, Switzerland Grammar school teacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.50.114 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a spam link in the external links section, and should be removed. It's called straight teeth, and links to some wii related page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatquietboy (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Male vs. Female

Mention if there are any differences in the teeth of males vs. females. Jidanni (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

A template on this page say that there is a proposed merge with Tooth (animal). However, there is no mention of said merge proposal here, nor is there even a merge template on Tooth (animal). Is this still being considered, or can the template be safely removed? Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I really should have discussed this when I put the template up; I'm sorry. The thing is this article starts off making general statements about teeth in all vertebrates. And yet other parts of the content, and the title, are referring specifically to humans. Preferably really, this article should be split into Tooth and Human tooth. Tooth would only include information general to all animals, whereas Human tooth would include only content specific to humans. And the article Animal tooth should be renamed (Animal tooth being a redundancy unless you include plastic teeth or what-have-you) to Teeth by animal or something like that. Teeth by animal would then include information on teeth of any particular animal with a summary for those species e.g. humans which have separate articles. Munci (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems I simply forgot to add the template to Tooth (animal) before. Munci (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it is technically true that humans are a species of animal, the fact is that Wikipedia is edited primarily by humans, and there is therefore inevitably going to be more information regarding human teeth than about teeth of other animals (The fact that humans have developed society only exacerbates the situation). Also, the sense in which the word "Animal" is used in the title of that article means "Animals other than humans", and should be treated as such. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I question, even though the readers of wikipedia are all humans, whether it is appropriate to have an article specifically for non-human teeth, especially because it is not in the area of dental arrangements that humans are particularly unusual. The fact that humans are the species making wikipedia does mean a higher amount of information about humans than about any other species. That I can accept but not the definition of animal as excluding human.

In any case, what's more important is that this article has content referring to teeth in general, not just to humans (despite the title), and this ought to be resolved some way or another. And it's certainly useful information that should not be deleted. Munci (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to me that if they were merged, then the article would have to be so long that it would have to be forked anyway.Sithman VIII !! 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the tagging as 'merge' doesn't quite cut what I mean sorry. It's more a major rearrangement of content between mutiple articles. Munci (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely a structural problem. Both Tooth and Teeth redirect here. We really should have a main article there. I suspect that this article was once there because there is mention in the lead of animals using teeth as weapons etc. I think the main article should discuss common features of teeth such as what they are made of, how they can rot etc. It should discuss there uses as weapons, tools and of course for eating. It should discuss broad categories of teeth, canines, molars, incisors etc. as well as primary and permanent and teeth types that don't appear in humans (tusks etc.). How most species have a standard number of teeth of different types though individual members may have supernumerary ones. A brief mention can be mentioned of tooth care, dentistry etc but it should be borne in mind that most dentistry happens to humans rather than to pets, other domestic animals let alone wild ones.

Then an article can be forked Teeth in humans or Human teeth or whatever which lists the 32 teeth, discusses care etc in greater detail. If animal teeth by species need discussing anywhere, I think a list article is far more likely to be of use than the material currently in the Tooth (animal).--Peter cohen (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems perfectly sensible. Munci (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, the current Tooth (animal) seems to just be a bunch of copy-and-pasted dental sections from the respective animal articles.Sithman VIII !! 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears consensus is "no merge" thus removing templates.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Human "fangs"/pointy teeth

My canine teeth, and premolars are all fairly pointed. Though I know of folks with larger/longer canines, most folks don't seem to have pointed premolars. [[9]] How common is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.183.80 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove all the nonhuman material

The introductory paragraphs of this article are evidently copy-pasted from the general "Tooth" article. There is no need to go into detail about rodents, etc. Someone should edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.182.131 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Paragrah beginning "Humans usually have 20 primary teeth..."

Could someone with some expertise expand this paragraph, perhaps adding a couple of graphics, to explain exactly the number, names, and arrangement of the primary teeth and, separately, the adult teeth? The paragraph is basically a long run-on of information that seems incomplete and hard to break down. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.182.131 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Human tooth regrowth

Science with real bite: Full set of teeth grown in the lab (BBC, 13 July 2011). I think there should be a section about this. Komitsuki (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also think there should be a section about the potential of "lab grown human teeth" (or "synthetic teeth", or "teeth from stem cells") in the future.

I found the following articles about the topic:

• New teeth 'could soon be grown', 3 May 2004, BBC
• Gene could allow lab-grown teeth, 24 February 2009, BBC
• Researchers grow teeth from gum cells, 9 March 2013, BBC
• New teeth grown from urine - study, 29 July 2013, James Gallagher, BBC

I know, these are not reliable secondary sources but maybe someone can find better sources about the topic. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Where's the article on overcrowded teeth?

[10] Imagine Reason (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

X-ray of all 32 teeth

I uploaded a panoramic X-ray showing all 32 teeth with no cavities or fillings or other dental work at File:X-ray of all 32 human teeth.jpg. Not sure if it would be useful in this article or not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Human tooth Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Teeth (human) → Human tooth – This should be more consistent with the titles of other articles on human anatomical parts, such as Human brain, Human eye, Human skeleton, and Human Leg, just to name a few. Not only should "human" be first like in these other titles, but the title should be singular (Human eye is titled in a singular orders, even though humans have multiples eyes). Tatterfly (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - It looks like this was already supported and there was a cut-and-paste move (history) that was reverted, then nothing. So, while there is a small amount of history at Human tooth, that content is nothing but a duplicate and is safe to be deleted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Artery, vein, finger, toe, et al, even where different other than merely bilaterally symmetrical, use the singular. Dru of Id (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sounds reasonable. JonRichfield (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for consistency and more natural-sounding title. JIP | Talk 09:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Two minutes

In the section on oral hygiene, should this article say that teeth should be brushed for a minimum of two minutes every time one brushes one's teeth? Vorbee (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dental Deformity

What is it called when you have an extra tooth between 24 and 25 Amenominakanushi (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Human tooth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 promotion contains massive amounts of uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.