Talk:Bridge (dentistry)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Strange...

Strange that this article doesn't mention the Maryland bridge, even though the article @ http://www.dentalfind.com/glossary/maryland_bridge.html states that it's the most common.

[edit] Image found on commons

Plate or Bridge?
Plate or Bridge?

- Leonard G. 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

This is a denture, otherwise known as a "plate" in layman's terms. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

A dental bridge is not an entity in and of itself -- it is a modified crown, namely, multiple crown units fused to one another or fabricated as a single unit to begin with. This should not be its own article. Someone who knows how -- please suggest a merge with crown (dentistry) and lets get this article gone. Then, the crown article, which is labelled as "in need of editing" due to its poor form and structure can be revised to incorporate this and whatever else is needed. I volunteer to redo the crown article once this bridge article is merged. The new article should be entitled fixed partial denture, and "crown", "bride" and "crown and bridge" should all be redirected to this article. Would someone more familiar with this merging process let me know when my help can be of some use to clear this entire thing up. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just added a 'merge' tag on both Bridge (dentistry) and Crown (dentistry). You could now possibly watch this page for discussions and show your opinion. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a serious point of contention or controversy for which there needs to be a drawn out process of accepting agreements or opposition to the merge in order to review the public perception of the validity of my suggestion. It seems to me to be more of an issue of imprecision on behalf of the initiators of the two articles. I hope this merger is resolved quickly so as not to have it linger on for months. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct classification of a bridge is a fixed partial denture. A crown is a full veneer restoration. However, the idea that a bridge is a modified crown works towards a laypersons understanding of the concept, so I agree with the merger in principle, not the name change. If you can work it another way so as not to result in confusion to the reader, I will go with that. If you want to merge the article into a fixed prosthodontics article under the heading crown and bridge, that would work. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your insinuation that a crown is not a fixed partial denture. The methodology provided at dental schools (or at least UMDNJ) is that both crown and bridge work are various constituents of a group known as fixed. Thus, a crown is a single unit of fixed and a bridge is 3, 4, 5, etc. units of fixed. They serve roughly the same purposes, namely, to provide restrore teeth that are too decayed and/or fractured to be restored with intracoronal restorations, to provide cuspal protection for endodontically treated teeth and to provide what is demanded in a circumstance necessitating a more esthetic or functional entity (i.e. for anterior staining that, for whatever reason, cannot be treated with bleaching or facial veneers, and surveyed/abutment crowns for RPDs and precision attachments). Bridges can and do serve the same functions, albeit serving an additional function of spanning an edentulous region. Multiple-unit fixed partial dentures without pontics, although I suppose not technically fitting the layman's definition of a "bridge," is nevertheless considered a "bridge" when it comes to dentists, at least in terms of parallelism, concerns of mobility, functional occlusion and fabrication methods and techniques. In essence, I contend that as it is taught in U.S. dental schools, crowns are indeed members of the family of fixed partial dentures, and I suggest all information be included under that article title, with both "crown" and "bridge" to be redirected to this future article. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that both are types of fixed prosthetic, no-one could successfully argue otherwise. I was always taught that a denture (of any description) is a restoration of an edentulous space. I agree with you that a crown essentially restores a (usually) non-functional unit of the dentition to function, however it is not restoring an edentulous space to function. Conceptually, I understand your point of view and admittedly I am not aux fait with the technical classifications of fixed prosthodontics having forgotten much of the peculiarities required since I completed finals (these types of things rarely come in to the head when not needing to answer to professors etc ;) ).Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics (apologies for the cliche), I believe the crux of this debate is whether or not to merge the articles in order to either a) better cover the material that we as editors want to get across to the reader and/or b) significantly contribute to a better understanding of the material by the reader. If there is one thing I have learned since I started contributing here is that academic specifics such as these are generally of little use (even though I would still like to have them here). I tend more now to follow the KISS rule because I would like to think that it makes the articles more accessible to the reader, especially the lay reader. Any dentist or dental student reading this should either already know the little things or have access to far higher quality or more academically slanted material than can ever be provided here.
I do however believe there is enough in common between the two for a merge, and that redirects would suffice for anyone desiring information on either or both.Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I figure I should mention my thoughts here as well, but I believe the two articles should remain separate. Most people (not "dental people") will look up and want information about a crown. Or they will look up and want information on a bridge. There is enough distinction between the two to have separate articles on how each of them work. What I think is a possibility is to have an article on fixed prosthodontics that relates the two together and discusses the principles of how each of them work. I see the crown and bridge similar to that of composite and glass ionomer. All of these can have their own articles, and at the same time have an article on fixed prosthodontics and dental fillings. - Dozenist talk 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. your analogy of composite and ionomer to crown and bridge is a terrible one, because you are introducing too many variables. Crowns and bridges are the same physical entity, albeit expanded or embellished, while perhaps serving different functions. However, they may even serve the same function or an overlapping function, such as when the adjacent terminal or pier abutments around or within an edentulous space require full coverage. However, composite and ionomer are neither the same entity nor perform nearly the same function, other than both being somewhat tooth-colored and being used as an intracoronal tooth restoration. I'm sorry, Dozenist, but your example is a far cry from a valid analogous argument. Crown and bridge utilize similar if not identical principals of diagnosis, treatment planning, preparation, temporization, fabrication, coping-try in techniques, porcelain application, occlusal and axial contour considerations and insertion and cementation. Almost nothing can be said to be as closely related, except perhaps complete dentures and RPD's. However, unlike my last example, when there are fundamental principals of design, fabrication, try-in, processing and insertion that differ between the two so much so as to most probably maintain the status quo of a separate article for each, the argument over crown and bridge is essentially an issue of gross overlap of almost every point of discussion between the two. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you DRosenbach, except in the naming of the article - I do not believe crowns fall under the heading of fixed partial denture, nor do I believe that naming it as such would make an article more accessible to a reader of any description. "Crown and Bridge" (being a naming convention in use in both the vernacular and dental jargon) or at a stretch "Fixed Prosthodontics" (which would also require a section on implantology IMHO) would be more conducive to an understanding of the principles involved in diagnosis, treatment planning, resistance and retention design, preparation, temporisation, fabrication and biological and aesthetic considerations. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My paramount concern is that crown and bridge not be separate. What the article is called is really irrelevant, as all other possible article names can be redirected. In the interest of getting this going already...it doesn't objectively matter what the proposed merged article is titled. So is this a final decision? Can I move it, or do we need to wait for an admin? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to merge. The article should be entitled 'crown and bridge' and fixed prosthodontics, crown, and bridge should refer to it. There is a third merger in this equation as well: Restorative fixed prostheses. As part of my proposal, I suggest that we merge fixed prosthodontics with this article and it should refer to the crown and bridge article. 'crown' and 'bridge' should redirect tocrown and bridge which should be a merger of the two articles.Bouncingmolar 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger development

As dozenist has mentioned, in the crown and bridge talk page, contrary to my previous agreement perhaps the pages should actually be separate as the previous arrangement. I think initially they were both too vague to be separate, but as I add more detail, I can see that bridges need an entirely different section devoted to inlay supported bridges and cantilevered bridging.

conversely I think the material and preparation and fabrication section is identical.... dilemma.. perhaps the material section could be brief and refer to the dental restorative materials page. I also think that only a brief description of crown and bridge should be present in the restorative fixed prostheses page/indirect restoration page, as the scope is too wide. I will continue with the crown and bridge page, but I think that the page will develop enough to allow it to split again in the near future :) Bouncingmolar 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but how much needs to be written about crowns? I've looked at what is there now and all the basics are covered (most of it is to do with materials and biological considerations anyway). Agreed that there is a considerable amount about bridges such as Rochette, Maryland, cantilevered, perforated, fixed/movable, telescopic, inlay supported, implant supported (this is fixed prostho after all). Not much about crowns needed. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, all those things you mentioned need to be talked about. Also information about pontics. I've kind of run out of steam, there are a couple of sections that need expansion like a brief description how crowns are made and perhaps a bit about types of crowns as in full gold crown and pfms etc.. Bouncingmolar 21:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crown and bridge development

What happened? DRosenbach I disagree with the changes made in this edit: drosenbach revision comparison 19:05, 16 March 2007. I do however like some of the other changes you have made. I dislike these changes because I think they have made have made the article more colloquial; the tone of the article is now more informal, instead of encylopedic. also I think that the old subheadings broke up the article and were more concise and easier to follow. I do not like the new definition/ introduction because the definition has become more vague. the link has been removed from the introduction to indirect restorations, and why was the advantages title removed when the disadvantages was retained. I havn't reverted it though because I would like some consensus first(Bouncingmolar 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

All talk should hereafter occur at the Talk:Crown and bridge page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)