Talk:Extraction (dental)

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

dental extraction vedios

Just wondering if the image in this page is too scary for people seeking information about dental procedures... I personally have a severe dentist phobia and personally that image doesn't affect me, but I'm sure it will scare many people :) --Appelshine 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This page made me feel ill

Please remove that picture someone it makes some of our stomachs turn

I agree. The image is not only disgusting, but adds nothing of value to the article.

(left unsigned by user:68.21.181.174)
Please stop removing the image, I think it is helpful to actually get a visual sense about what the procedure is like. There is nothing disgusting/scary about this picture, it is a nice example of a dental extraction in practice and there is no reason to remove it simply because you find it not to your liking. Potzomchick 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The image is actually a very good picture considering that it is difficult to get a clear picture of an ongoing dental extraction. - Dozenist talk 01:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a very good picture. Just because you find blood 'disgusting' does not mean that the image does not add anything to the article. I think the image adds a lot to the article because, without the image, the reader cannot truly apreciate what happens during an extraction. Billyb 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Forget about my complaint, I just saw the "Wikipedia is NOT..." page. And you're right, it does add a good deal to the article.
It would be less gruesome in black-and-white.
I moved it further down the page so it isn't above the fold. I think that is a good compromise. Perhaps someone could replace the photograph with a drawing or less explicit image, similar to how the images in the sexual categories are handled. --Aaronp808 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but penis and circumcision seem to have some pretty explicit pictures. Regardless, most people here have expressed how descriptive this photograph is, and it would be a waste to remove it in favor of a drawing. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, to get such a high quality picture during a dental extraction that shows clearly the procedure is very difficult, and this picture is able to accomplish all that. - Dozenist talk 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The image does not belong in the "post extraction healing" section. I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm not moving it back up myself. If anyone else agrees with me, please move it up. --Storkk 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved it up a bit, to "Types of extraction". I really have no objections having it at the very top. But here is fine too. Potzomchick 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the image back to the top. Here is my reasoning: 1) the fact that it is disturbing to some is wholly irrelevant; 2) this picture clearly belongs at the top, near the summary information. I also added another picture of an extracted tooth - I'm ambivalent about where to put it. To whoever started this: If, hypothetically, looking at dead people makes you queasy, why on earth click a link to cadaver? Apply the same logic here.--Storkk 18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Doubtless the dental dudes have logic on their side, but it's the perception of insensivity to blood, pain and the crunching of bone that makes the rest of us go weak at the knees Far Canal 08:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Wikipedia is not censored. I have a hard time looking at the photo, too, but it's highly relevant to this article and is definitely appropriate. How else should an extraction be portrayed, exactly, in a photograph? Incidentally, it's time for breakfast. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel for me. It's what I look at all day, every day. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Advises for patients"

There was some useful info here, but it was terribly badly written (starting with the heading). Consistent misspelling of 'dentist' as 'dentrist'; unnecessary exclamation marks; dubious science (chamomile rinses, avoidance of milk and dairy products post-XLA, 'diabetes patients may not receive adrenalin-based shots', bridges can be constructed after 3 weeks); factual errors ('patients will not feel pain during the whole day of or the day after'; and many spelling errors. S.a.h.r.g 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The post extraction healing section is absolute garbage. There is no need to keep pressure on a socket for 45 minutes. If bleeding hasn't stopped with pressure after 15mins-30mins, you have a problem and need an adjunct to haemostasis such as surgicel or some other haemostatic. Forty five minutes is ridiculous. Nobody could hold gauze in their mouth for that long. Not only that, but gauze will soak up flowing blood. That is not good if you want a clot to form. When you take the gauze out you will remove any pre clot that has formed. Also meds advice - leave that to a professional. Post operative care does not include tying ice bags to your head with a towel. Maybe in a Marx brothers movie. Also the quickest treatment for dry socket is irrigation with chlorhexidine gluconate and packing with alvogyl followed by (and this is the most important part) prescription of metronidazole. Anyone who was experienced in practical dentistry would not disagree with this regimen. Obviously this section was written by someone who is not.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! We have a little pamphlet that says to leave gauze in the mouth for an hour (replacing it out when the gauze gets soggy). It is also school policy. I thought you would find that humorous. - Dozenist talk 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there is always the possibility that I am wrong :-). I just extracted an unrestorable upper left second premolar and I let the lady leave after 10mins with gauze in situ. Took the (soggy) gauze out and let her leave. The one time I had trouble with clotting, the first gauze I put in was saturated with blood after 5 mins. Had to replace it and it took the guy 30 mins to clot. So my point is, you'll know when you need to leave it in. Also, there are a lot of things I had to do in dental school that I don't do any more. More to the point, there were a lot of things I wasn't allowed to do in dental school that I do now, such as take out gauze after 10 mins, use a straight handpiece during surgical extractions (I know, it doesn't make sense to me either), use luxators (the single greatest extraction implement ever invented), use rotary endo kits, use magnification, sign my own treatment plans, prescribe radiographs, prescribe medications, sign my own charts, make treatment planning decisions, charge patients money, etc. In dental school you learn the basis to learn, in practice you learn. Don't worry. The good thing about it is in practice you are in control of what you learn. What you choose to do and not do determines your learning patterns. So do a bit of everything, like me.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked over the section here... it seemed helpful, but it sounded like it was copied directly off of a post-op information card in the way it directed the reader to do this or that. I tried to edit it. A doctor should revise this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.86.5 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
This does not belong here at all - wikipedia is an information not advice service. Plus the section does not describe post-extraction healing, it gives advice for post-op care, some of which is dubious at best. It's gone.Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the removal, fwiw. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Receiving radiation to head?

I just edited the reasons for extraction list because it sounded akwardly pamphlet-like. One reason on the list was Receiving radiation to the head and neck may require extraction of teeth in the field of radiation. Is this a common occurrence? Radiation to the head? Sounds a bit strange. Maybe someone could elaborate if its a real thing, or remove it from the list? Mikeeg555 11:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Receiving radiotherapy to the head as part of palliative treatment for cancer can damage teeth, causing discoloration and decay. In pediatric patients, radiation treatments may also cause the destruction of unerupted teeth. I think that it's a fairly common long-term side effect. I will do a little more research and then fix the section in question. MeredithParmer 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A significant problem from radiation therapy to the head (to treat cancer) is that you can get osteoradionecrosis of the jaws. If you need to get an unsalvageable tooth removed after radiation treatment things can get quite complicated because of possible osteonecrosis. Therefore, teeth are sometimes extracted prior to receiving radiation treatment. But there are many problems from radiation treatment, such as mucositis and not being able to produce enough saliva (because the cells in the salivary glands may be destroyed by radiation therapy). Once there is less saliva in the mouth after treatment, teeth are more likely to get decay. If the decay progresses too rapidly, then the teeth may require extraction, but this would still be undesirable because of the risk of osteoradionecrosis. See the problem? So, it is not uncommon to have teeth extracted before radiation therapy to the head if there is a risk of those teeth needing to be extracted after radiation therapy. - Dozenist talk 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain this

I moved this section to here, because it needs a little bit explanation first:

Much has been made in the media of links between tooth extraction and temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction (problems, including clicking and jamming, of the jaw joint). No research has shown a definitive link between orthodontic treatment, extraction of teeth and jaw joint problems. Most temporo-mandibular joint problems are multifactorial in origin (that is having a number of possible etiologic agents).

It doesn't say what causes what, if something would lead to the other. Do they claim that temporo-mandibular joint dysfunction causes some kind of natural tooth extraction, or is it the opposite way around? Mikael Häggström 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most common reason?

The intro paragraph says the "most frequent indication" is tooth decay. The 3rd paragraph says the "most common reason" is fracture. I'm not a dentist, so I don't know if there's a technical difference between "indication" and "reason", but at the very least these statements are confusing and apparently contradictory. Can anyone help clean this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediddle (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have extracted some sentences and filled some others. I hope it all now makes sense. Snalwibma (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does it hurt?

Can anybody add more about how the extraction is preformed. Is anaesthesia used? I am personally shit-scared of needles, does that mean I'll have to go through it without anaesthesia? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)