Talk:Dental abscess

Absolutely shocking that the article compiler doesnt deem it to fit to mention under treatment that antibiotics such as amoxycillin are superb at killing the pain and bacteria. Instead all we are told about is surgical treatments. Also more should be made of the excrutiating pain that an abcess entails. Therefore the amoxcycillin treatment should be listed as those suffering and referring to these pages would not be aware otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.218.32 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cashews

I have just reverted a big batch of changes by Alesnormales to this article. While I can't fix the problems with the article in its present state, the changes made by this editor all seem to revolve around making it conform with an online article that advocates alternative treatments for dental problems involving the consumption of cashew nuts. I find the following statement in the source reason enough to seriously question anything it says:

“Please keep in mind that this last is counter to the opinion of the American dental profession.”

Indeed! The same could be said about almost everything in that source. The source is also deeply troubling because it is based on one person's account of success in treating tooth abscesses in a particular manner, not on any sort of study. In short, even if the author is correct, the source does not even come close to credibly demonstrating it -Fenevad 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it problematic when articles dealing with health topics mention "alternative" treatments that have no scientific backing. There may be a place to mention these "home remedies" but I am a bit skeptical since many of them have no reliable sources to refer to. - Dozenist talk 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. But I thought Wikipedia is a collective source and it reflect the world's people opinion. And there are another opinions about tooth abscess prevention and they are the right for living just because they was proved by many researches... I understand your point of view and jus want explain you mine. - Alesnormales 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is at least partly verifiability, a cornerstone of Wikipedia. To be clear, Wikipedia is not here to "reflect the world's people opinion": enforcing a point of view is to be avoided, but the article used to promote cashews is based entirely on one person's anecdotal evidence and thus violates the original research and verifiability criteria. He says what he did and gives his results, but they cannot be confirmed. The bit about cashews could at best be included in a section on alternative treatments and billed as a treatment advocated by someone (but would probably be deleted by editors, to be quite frank). If, on the other hand, others had verified his conclusions and confirmed them, it would count as verifiable. Just because something is on the web, however, only means that you can verify that someone said it, not that the content of that saying is verifiable.

When I reverted your edits outside of the link, it was because they seemed clearly to be designed to support the cashew article, and the edits were done in a way that removed mainstream accepted views in favor of unsubstantiated ones, in fairly subtle ways, such as specifying that abscesses are caused by holes in enamel, thus removing the other important mechanisms described in the article. Be careful in editing if you think that you need to remove other content that represents well accepted views to support what you want to say, since it then appears that you are editing to reflect a point of view rather than to be neutral.

I hope this helps you understand what was done and why. -Fenevad 01:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Fenevad, maybe I thought a little otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alesnormales (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Dental Abscess

Normally I'd call this a dental abscess. (Bouncingmolar 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)) Actually, I think it should also be called periapical abscess, to differentiate from periodontal abscess, but perhaps it could include information about it and lateral abscesses.Bouncingmolar 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a dentist, nor do I aspire to be one. I am wondering if someone working on this project would be kind enough to re-write it in laymen's terms. I am sure those who are reading the article for the purpose of learning dentistry at a professional level may also have other materials at their disposal provided by their assorted colleges/universities. As a nobody just going to the famouos online Wikipedia website to learn about things from an Average Jane's perspective, this article was completely indecipherable. Was it written for every day people on the internet trying to learn something at a non-technical level, or for people going to dentistry school? Please have someone approach it from a more palatable angle. If anyone needs my assistance in accomplishing this, let me know. I'd love to give it a try, but I would have to decipher it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantisisdead (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This [1] edit looks very suspect: no reference or attribution, the formatting, and the notation numerals at the end of the paragraphs. It looks very much like a copy/paste job. Keri (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My name is Devanshi and I have recently been working on enhancing the content related to dental abscesses on Wikipedia. I noticed that my attempt to create a separate article for periapical abscesses, which is distinctly different from a dental abscess, was reverted without accompanying feedback.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance in providing clarification on the reason behind the reversion. I believe that separating the information on dental abscesses and periapical abscesses would enhance the clarity and depth of the content, as mentioned in the article itself.

Wikipedia encourages collaboration and consensus-building, and I am open to discussion and modification to ensure that the information presented aligns with the community's standards. If there are specific guidelines or concerns that led to the reversion, I would be more than willing to address them in the revised article.

I value the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and believe that together we can create informative and accurate content for the benefit of readers. Your insights and feedback on this matter would be invaluable in ensuring the quality of the articles on dental health.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you and working together to improve Wikipedia's content.

Best regards, --Devanshivipin (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)