Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
I wouldn't class this article as 'complete', as says next to nothing about the evolution or fossil record of teeth [I've made a rather paltry start], and its coverage seems to me to be far too anthropocentric - especially in the images department. The over-analysis of human teeth detracts from the focus of the article. Martin ( Smith609 –  Talk) 06:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That's generally a problem on this wiki. Adding non-human info to articles sometimes results in reversals with the edit summary "not important" (I'm not talking about this article). What can you do, we drive other species to extinction. </endrant> Xasodfuih ( talk) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There is an article on [Tooth (animal)|non-human teeth] already, which would be a great location for more information about teeth in animals. Further, I think the in-depth information on the anatomy, function, and diseases of teeth is important to ensuring the article is complete. About adding some information on the fossil record of teeth- I say the more, the merrier. - Dozenist talk 14:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply