This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Impacted wisdom teeth was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 2, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Impacted wisdom teeth has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
Surely there's a way to do this. But dentists associations aren't interested in any developments that reduce their stock market gambling incomes from the future repeat surgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We have one ref in the screening section. Are there more opinions as this appears to be just that of the author. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot.... and the video? Ian Furst ( talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lesion, I wasn't sure if people would like or hate it but I thought the article would work with it because of all the visuals. Blueraspberry but up an idea page about them at WP:Wiki Loves Health Videos. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've gone through pubmed and I can't find any other articles that deal specifically with screening recommendations. I've emailed Dodson to see if he knows of other evidence-based recommendations. Ian Furst ( talk) 16:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Furst,
I wonder if, before we evaluate this article against the GA criteria, it might be possible we might make it even better.
Could we do the following?:
Could we also try to do some of the following more-minor items?: (Note that these items may not be required whatsoever for the article to achieve GA status.)
User:Revent also suggested that, in the References section, we could make the page ranges use en dashes. I agree that this is a good idea, although the GA criteria don't require this whatsoever.
I feel that the article is quite useful as it stands already. It taught me all sorts of things about the subject. I especially liked how it discussed the pros and cons of removal. Still, there is no article in the world which couldn't be improved even further.
Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In general I find this article well-written and easy to understand and I have removed the "multiple issues" tag which I think is unnecessary. The paragraph on another classification system is the exception, being jargon-laden, and I note that it was added recently by an editor other than the nominator. I note that the nominator is an irregular contributor to Wikipedia and may therefore not be quick to respond to this review, but other editor's with knowledge of the topic are welcome to respond here or make the improvements I am suggesting to the text of the article. Here are some points I noticed:
There is one more article, advising against prophylactic extraction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963310/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not a grammatically well-formed construction. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F4EC:BD77:C22B:62FD ( talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Scientist Bill, Doc James Below is a quote from Peterson p.139 (the source for the disputed text). Usual time of formation is 18 years old, but the apex remains open and movement continues until age 25. Just because the root is complete, doesn't mean development has finished as eruption is still part of development. I think the older age should be used.
The mandibular third molar is the most commonly impacted tooth. It also presents the greatest surgical challenge and invites the greatest controversy when indications for removal are considered.When the surgeon is determining whether a specific third molar will become impacted and whether it should be removed, he or she needs to have a clear understanding of the development and movement of the third molar between the ages of 7 and 25 years. A number of longitudinal studies have clearly defined the development and eruption pattern of the third molar.4–7 The mandibular third molar tooth germ is usually visible radiographically by age 9 years, and cusp mineralization is completed approximately 2 years later. At age 11 years, the tooth is located within the anterior border of the ramus with its occlusal surface facing almost directly anteriorly. The level of the tooth germ is approximately at the occlusal plane of the erupted dentition. Crown formation is usually complete by age 14 years, and the roots are approximately 50% formed by age 16 years. During this time the body of the mandible grows in length at the expense of resorption of the anterior border of the ramus. As this process occurs the position of the third molar relative to the adjacent teeth changes, with the third molar assuming a position at approximately the root level of the adjacent second molar. The angulation of the crown becomes more horizontal also. Usually the roots are completely formed with an open apex by age 18 years. By age 24 years 95% of all third molars that will erupt have completed their eruption.
Ian Furst ( talk) 12:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Now returning to look at the lead and how well it summarises the rest of the article -
I read the article linked in the classification section (see history of my edit), and although the article laid out the classifications of wisdom teeth, the occurrence rates of disease of impacted teeth, broken down by symptomatic and asymptomatic, was absolutely nowhere to be found in the article. This should be removed, or the correct source should be cited. Getav3i32 ( talk) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Impacted wisdom teeth was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 2, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Impacted wisdom teeth has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 23, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
Surely there's a way to do this. But dentists associations aren't interested in any developments that reduce their stock market gambling incomes from the future repeat surgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We have one ref in the screening section. Are there more opinions as this appears to be just that of the author. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot.... and the video? Ian Furst ( talk) 13:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Lesion, I wasn't sure if people would like or hate it but I thought the article would work with it because of all the visuals. Blueraspberry but up an idea page about them at WP:Wiki Loves Health Videos. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've gone through pubmed and I can't find any other articles that deal specifically with screening recommendations. I've emailed Dodson to see if he knows of other evidence-based recommendations. Ian Furst ( talk) 16:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Furst,
I wonder if, before we evaluate this article against the GA criteria, it might be possible we might make it even better.
Could we do the following?:
Could we also try to do some of the following more-minor items?: (Note that these items may not be required whatsoever for the article to achieve GA status.)
User:Revent also suggested that, in the References section, we could make the page ranges use en dashes. I agree that this is a good idea, although the GA criteria don't require this whatsoever.
I feel that the article is quite useful as it stands already. It taught me all sorts of things about the subject. I especially liked how it discussed the pros and cons of removal. Still, there is no article in the world which couldn't be improved even further.
Cheers, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In general I find this article well-written and easy to understand and I have removed the "multiple issues" tag which I think is unnecessary. The paragraph on another classification system is the exception, being jargon-laden, and I note that it was added recently by an editor other than the nominator. I note that the nominator is an irregular contributor to Wikipedia and may therefore not be quick to respond to this review, but other editor's with knowledge of the topic are welcome to respond here or make the improvements I am suggesting to the text of the article. Here are some points I noticed:
There is one more article, advising against prophylactic extraction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1963310/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not a grammatically well-formed construction. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F4EC:BD77:C22B:62FD ( talk) 09:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Scientist Bill, Doc James Below is a quote from Peterson p.139 (the source for the disputed text). Usual time of formation is 18 years old, but the apex remains open and movement continues until age 25. Just because the root is complete, doesn't mean development has finished as eruption is still part of development. I think the older age should be used.
The mandibular third molar is the most commonly impacted tooth. It also presents the greatest surgical challenge and invites the greatest controversy when indications for removal are considered.When the surgeon is determining whether a specific third molar will become impacted and whether it should be removed, he or she needs to have a clear understanding of the development and movement of the third molar between the ages of 7 and 25 years. A number of longitudinal studies have clearly defined the development and eruption pattern of the third molar.4–7 The mandibular third molar tooth germ is usually visible radiographically by age 9 years, and cusp mineralization is completed approximately 2 years later. At age 11 years, the tooth is located within the anterior border of the ramus with its occlusal surface facing almost directly anteriorly. The level of the tooth germ is approximately at the occlusal plane of the erupted dentition. Crown formation is usually complete by age 14 years, and the roots are approximately 50% formed by age 16 years. During this time the body of the mandible grows in length at the expense of resorption of the anterior border of the ramus. As this process occurs the position of the third molar relative to the adjacent teeth changes, with the third molar assuming a position at approximately the root level of the adjacent second molar. The angulation of the crown becomes more horizontal also. Usually the roots are completely formed with an open apex by age 18 years. By age 24 years 95% of all third molars that will erupt have completed their eruption.
Ian Furst ( talk) 12:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 18:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Now returning to look at the lead and how well it summarises the rest of the article -
I read the article linked in the classification section (see history of my edit), and although the article laid out the classifications of wisdom teeth, the occurrence rates of disease of impacted teeth, broken down by symptomatic and asymptomatic, was absolutely nowhere to be found in the article. This should be removed, or the correct source should be cited. Getav3i32 ( talk) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)