Talk:Remineralisation of teeth

Dentistry Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Copied from Talk:Remineralisation. Biscuittin (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we are a group of Latrobe students in our last year of bachelor of oral health and as part of our subject requirements we are expected to edit a Wikipedia site to improve its accuracy and usefulness of information. We have currently edited the definition of 'remineralisation of teeth' and also are editing the list for fluoride therapies. We have decided to add an extensive list where fluoride is placed and also used throughout daily life or in the dental setting. (V6christoforou (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

We have added some sub headings about ways in which teeth can be remineralised. Some of these involve fluoride therapies, however we will also be discussing the natural remineralisation of teeth such as through saliva which is present in the oral cavity. We could also possibly discuss the effects of reduced saliva flow and poor quality saliva. Hyperlinks to other pages with relevant information will also be added. --Kirstyhall (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow students. There has been some data that is specific to Australia which has been used in some of your literature. Just reminding you all to keep in mind that this is a world wide page and any statistics/references need to relate to world populations and not specific countries. It is likely that this information will be deleted from the page by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiastainton (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, there appears to be a lot of references with nothing in them. Could you please ensure references are updates when information is added so there is no mix up. Thank you, Kirsty. Kirstyhall (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more information to Diet, please tell me if there's something you need me to fix it. Thank you, Joan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolim95 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Just let me know if any sections require more info! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exo-26 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated overall layout(headings etc) and also updated all referencing. Still need to address the Australian based statistic according to fluoridated community water. Could whoever wrote this please adjust as requested before . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiastainton (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know?

That it won't refill a cavity? It seems to me that it can and probably does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically "cavity" means a hole that has broken through to the vulnerable dentin. According to a few dentists I have spoken with; at this point it is generally too large and decays too quickly, to fix with remineralizers. Some studies I have seen (produced by NovaMin) claim that remineralizers can partially repair incipient carries (not broken through to dentin). My dentist tells me this repaired enamel is not as strong as the original tooth enamel. I've never heard anyone claim remineralizers can fix complete cavities. Secondly, the accuracy of the device used to measure the incipient caries, is uncertain. NovaMin is quite expensive. The article can be misleading if it doesn't say that, but it would be better if we had a source. Lumenos (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a few things. The dentin below the enamel actually regenerates continuously. There are cells in the pulp producing new dentin, if the diet is properly nutritious (mainly vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, zink and phosphate) and the oral environment promotes it (non-acidic, free of acid producing bacteria, etc.). As far as I know fluorapatite can also build up in the dentin (cavity) and as it is much stronger than dentin and more resistant to acid, this is a good solution. I have never heard of large cavities remineralizing itself completely in such a way, but there might be some cases? Smaller cavities can and usually are though. RhinoMind (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Keep the current title. Ruslik_Zero 16:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remineralisation of teeth → Remineralization of teeth — This appears to be the correct spelling according to number of Google search results and the spelling of "mineralization". The page "Remineralization of teeth" currently has no discussion page and nothing important in edit history (only redirects). Lumenos (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are correct; one is more common in Britain, the other in the United States. We prefer neither, and don't switch articles between them. See WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in British English, -ize is correct, as the suffix form. The suffix, and words of Greek origin are -ize, words of Latin or French origin not using the suffix are -ise. WP:ENGVAR only extends to the correct spelling in the relevant variant of English. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose — For the reason Septentrionalis gave. --Una Smith (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppppose. Septentrionalis is correct. We don't have a preference between different spellings, and pages are not moved from an acceptable spelling to another unless the subject of the article has strong national ties to a certain spelling. The spelling differences are already mentioned in the lead. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose per WP:ENGVAR. --emerson7 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)~~ Support. According to the OED the correct spelling is with a z (at least for mineralization, remineralization isn't listed). I can only apologise for making assumptions based on other editors comments and the more common situation when it comes to s or z in UK / US spelling. Thanks to the IP editor for pointing this out. Dpmuk (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Neutral I hadn't realised this was the stance of the OED. I'd always held this to be the authoritive source on English spelling and this has put that in doubt. Consquently I don't feel in a position to comment until I've explored this more. Dpmuk (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suport~~ (with one p to overcompensate for you lot above). This request does not come down to an American/Canadian vs. Commonwealth issue. In the online OED remineralization is provided as the British spelling (and there is no entry for the ise spelling). So, it appears that ize, as pointed out by 81.110.104.91 and Dpmuk, is correct on both sides of the pond. From there, Google Book, News and, especially Scholar by a huge magnitude, show ize to be far more common.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because the OED uses Oxford spelling. The -ise form is still far more commonly used in British English. The OED usage also doesn't change the fact that moving from an accepted spelling to another is not done without "strong national ties" to the proposed spelling. Jafeluv (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took from the OED that it wasn't an accepted spelling but just a misspelling (like rigourous) but you're right, those Oxfordians use ize like Americans.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request: Incorporation into water fluoridation

From what I could read here, this is practically information copied and pasted into a new page, so why not just incorporate this page into water fluoridation and lead to the mechanisms section?--119.224.94.48 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because flouride is not needed for remineralization of teeth. Remineralization is a natural continuous process. Remineralization with fluoride to create fluorapatite is only one way of remineralizating bone and teeth. It might be a good idea, but it is just one of several ways in which this process can occur. Other technologies (apart from the natural process) is to use amorphous calcium phosphates. One product is Recaldent. RhinoMind (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

This page quickly devolves into a promo for fluoridation and does not include any information on natural mineralization. While the stated benefits of fluoridation may be as stated, no mention is made of the toxic effect of fluoride on body elements (thyroid, kidney, brain, bones) or the deleterious effect of fluoride on teeth via fluorosis. Without such discussion, this page is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.11.244 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is not worthless simply because it includes perspectives with which you disagree. The article would certainly benefit from info on natural mineralization, but you probably want to aim for WP:MEDRS. A good place to start would be textbooks used in conventional dental schools. The strongly worded anti-fluoridation literature probably would not fly here. If you are under the impression that a few ppm of fluoride is has a "toxic effect" on the brain, then your views are pretty fringe.--Smokefoot (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least flourosis needs to be touched in the article. It is also a bit skewed to present fluorapatite as stronger than hydroxyapatite. It is a brittle non-flexible material. It is certainly stronger than dentin though and is more relevant as a "filler" in small enamel cavities. As the chemical technology advances there are new materials (on the market even) that claims to be able to actually remineralized hydroxyapatite, a feat indeed! This should be up in the article to make it up to date. Just a communal to-do list free for all. RhinoMind (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I might not hold the same stringent beliefs as the original poster. However, it should be clearly stated in this article that remineralization is first and foremost a natural process that occurs every hour of every day -- as is demineralization. And both occur in all mouths, in all animals with teeth, regardless of the presence of fluoride. The mouth has a natural system to keep up tooth integrity that obviously is independent of fluoride. If we didn't, our teeth would all have dissolved away long ago. The system remineralizes our teeth to repair the damage that demineralization inflicts during an acid attack (which occurs the half hour after we eat).

To suggest that this process requires fluoride is, at the very least, mis-informed, mis-guided, and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.12 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points everybody. I have added a little text to the image representing this article. If I find a more general picture of remineralization I will put this in the lede and perhaps insert the current image in the section on fluoride.

The article still needs more information on the natural process of remineralization in teeth. RhinoMind (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remineralization is the preferred spelling by 2 to 1. Article should be retitled.

Remineralization -- About 450,000 results

Remineralisation -- About 217,000 results

Google 2012 December 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 December 2012

Wikipedia maintains articles using the style of spelling applied during article creation—see WP:ENGVAR. There is a redirect—see Remineralization of teeth. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amorphous Calcium Phosphate - Recaldent

This product seems to not be based on sound science or supported by recognised dental agencies, the Wikipedia page for it is riddled with advertisement like behaviour, as such i have reverted the previous edit due to this fact, if anyone can prove me wrong, comment below. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPP-ACP (casein phosphopeptide – amorphous calcium phosphate) has a lot of literature to prove it helps with tooth remineralisation. It is often recommended in the dental clinic and comes in many forms. Tooth Mousse and Recaldent being 2 common ones recommended. I feel it is a very important factor to discuss in regards to remineralisation of teeth and can be discussed without reference to specific products.

It is covered in the review article below: Li, X., Wang, J., Joiner, A., & Chang, J. (2014b). The remineralisation of enamel: A review of the literature. Journal of Dentistry, 42, S12–S20. doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(14)50003-6

There are multiple references in this article to support this, articles included in the reference list to support this are: 75-81 (ref list) Kirstyhall (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan, you have added another section as Tooth Mousse which is a product containing CPP-ACP that has been discussed above. Your post may be deleted from this page as was the last post regarding CPP-ACP and it being specifically related to dental products by name. I still believe CPP-ACP is a topic to discuss however it may need to be discussed in regards to the ingredient, not to brand names of products. Kirstyhall (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, that wikipedia articles require 2nd party sources, not just 1st party ones like scientific literature, they require extensive coverage and review by other outside sources rather than their main subject (i.e. dentistry), professional dental reports also need to be made outside journals. As such, this information isn't relevant to the discussion until 2nd party findings have shown that it is broad based and effective as people do use wikipedia as a source for medical advice and it would be wrong to give them incorrect advice. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy regarding primary sources, and this is particularly true of peer-reviewed science journal articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources The real thing is that primary sources should be used without interpretation. Say, summarize, or (accurately) paraphrase, nothing other than what is written within the primary source. Obviously one can abuse the selection process by cherry-picking sources that agree with some POV. But that could apply to secondary sources as well. JohndanR (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Kirsty! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolim95 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the complete lack of any artificial remineralization strategies whatsoever outside of fluoride treatment and supplementation. primary and secondary sources are hardly lacking. Eg.

J Dent (Tehran). 2012 Winter;9(1):68-75. Epub 2012 Mar 31.

Remineralization Effect of Topical NovaMin Versus Sodium Fluoride (1.1%) on Caries-Like Lesions in Permanent Teeth. Vahid Golpayegani M1, Sohrabi A, Biria M, Ansari G.

(Conclusion: the calcium compound was found superior to NaF in remineralization.)

(Tangentially, but pertinently, erythritol was found in at least one study to be superior to xylitol in caries control, at least in pediatric dentistry.)

( Caries Res. 2014;48(5):482-90. doi: 10.1159/000358399. Epub 2014 May 21. Effect of erythritol and xylitol on dental caries prevention in children. Honkala et al.) JohndanR (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

main picture

the main picture claiming fluride coats the tooth as opposed to replaced calcium in tooth structure making it inferior and very brittal, prone to chipping and cracking .
sodium , iron and fluoride pollution in tooth structure is responsible for its weakness in first place .
acids such as the preservative phosphoric acid , vinegar , acetic acid , ethnic acid , carbolic acids , fatty acids , sour fruit varieties cause unnatural tooth decay .
this is common knowledge .