Draft talk:Root analogue dental implant

Unreferenced text

Whoever is interested in this article, please supply the unreferenced statemnets with footnotes, otherwise they will be deleted soon. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging

Please follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for selective merging this article into Dental implant. Obviously, there is no consensus for complete or major merge, for various reasons. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Medical slang question

What exactly is pre-operational CT/DVT scan? I know CT means CAT scan, but DVT usually means deep vein thrombosis which should not have relevance with dentistry, or is there? Tony85poon (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

DVT removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

DVT is Digitale Volumentomographie in German, otherwise known as Cone beam computed tomography in English. Any dental professional will know immediately that they are one and the same. Uninformed edits are just a waste of time - discuss first before removal, please! I'll edit the article to make the replacement.Logicwhatelse (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) For your edification, here are two links that explain Digital Volume Tomography: https://www.institut-huemer.at/index.php/en/digital-volume-tomography and https://www.oralchirurgie-nea.de/en-us/treatment-specializations/digital-volume-tomography.html Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Restored original article

The author of the article is a professional maxillofacial surgeon and dentist, working for 15 years in a study group on root analogue dental implants. So if you don't have any knowledge, skills and experience on root analogue dental implants, please start a discussion, stating your concerns, before making any scientifically-based changes.Logicwhatelse (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree with restoring the original article. The other Wikipedians have done a great job at keeping the article short. Longer does not necessarily mean better. I feel that the longer version contains too much trivial information. Having said that, I suggest using a simple table style to make it an easy-read.

	Conventional implant	RAI
Pros	(Off the shelf) titanium screws mass-produced at a lower cost.	Require a lower-level of surgical skills
Cons	Peri-implantitis Loss of bone and damage to nerves Can tear off more mouth tissues when there is an accident.	The implant is custom-made at a higher cost as the CAD/CAM dentistry and Cone beam computed tomography sister-technologies are relatively new too. The first CAT scan exposes the patient to high dosage of radiation. Cannot be done by 2D projectional radiography.

Tony85poon (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

[1] I did try to take it to the next level. Looks like there is no objection to the "best of both worlds". Just in case the message is not clear enough:-

(repeat again) Basically, there are nothing much going on at Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Root analogue dental implant. I suggest to close the discussion by NOT deleting. Instead, I suggest replacing the Root analogue dental implant with #redirect[[Dental implant]]. That would be the best of both worlds. The merged Dental implant has improved readability. People who still want more RAI content can dig up the old versions. Moreover, I already created a page at Commons:Root analogue dental implant that links to Root analogue dental implant. If deleted, the commons-page might link to nothing. Tony85poon (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (end of repetition)
God bless. Tony85poon (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Picture removed, a bloody mouth has no useful purpose on this talk page. Tony85poon why have you posted the above "repeat" -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new WP user. I found the original article on RAIs very useful as a separate article. It's a very interesting topic, and just two paragraphs on Dental Implant isn't enough to do it justice. The history section alone was worth its own WP page, and the references are invaluable. Do whatever you want on Dental Implant, I think this article should be restored so it's accessible to any lay person, without having to dig through obscure offshoots of WP. Noirisblack (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted edits

There are too many instances of extreme editing and trimming taking place with this article. This is tantamount to vandalism, and the page has been restored accordingly. Make use of the talk page to discuss edits, or it will be necessary to escalate this to Wikipedia administrators.Logicwhatelse (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Logicwhatelse, the problem is that most of what you have added is not cited to independent reliable sources. As a non-expert in this area there is no way for me to decide whether it is accurate or not. On Wikipedia we have no way of knowing that you are an expert, so we insist on such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please point out a source which is not 'independent' and 'reliable': Journal of Oral Implantology; Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.; International Magazine of Oral Implantology; J. Prosthet. Dent.; Clin Oral Implants Res.; Int J Prosthodont.; Lasers Med Sci.; Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Each of these is a reputable international academic journal. All points in the article are properly referenced. Links are provided, where possible. Have you checked these links to verify them? What, then, is the problem? Logicwhatelse (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Primary sources you are associated with are not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Leaving Doc James's point aside, the last version that you created before I commented had four sections that were completely unreferenced. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is carefully neutral. None of our work is emphasized over that of any other group. If you believe it is, please point out a specific instance. This is the purpose of the talk page. We are not associated with primary sources; some of our work is necessarily referenced. Doc James: an overarching claim that this is a COI is simply inflammatory: again, please point out specifics. This is not a reason to butcher the article. An independent reviewer will see immediately that you have stripped the article of all meaningful information; this is not appropriate conduct for an editor of a public encyclopedia. Phil Bridger, if you found sections not referenced to your satisfaction, use the talk page! And you still have not answered which references are unreliable. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

When you say "our work" to who do you refer? And what is your relationship to that time? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check my talk page, where I have identified myself and fully disclosed any COI. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't said that any references are unreliable, but just that the sections "The Problem with conventional implants", "Technique", "Advantages" and "Risks and complications" had no references at all, whether reliable or unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If the page can be reinstated, appropriate references will be added. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is this article deleted that much? Would be interested in how that Root analogue implant works in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.188.136.33 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I note that your IP address geolocates to Vienna, the same city where Logicwhatelse is based. Is that just a coincidence? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Not me 62.178.124.233 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't logged in. I didn't post that comment. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Reinstatement of original article

I have fully disclosed my identity and any COI, without any comments. Therefore I intend to reinstate the original article tomorrow. If there are objections to the original content, please discuss them here. So far there have been no arguments or discussions, just edits and deletion. If there are any reversions or extreme edits, I'll request page protection. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The current page is an affront. Neither reference 2 nor 3 have anything to do with RAIs. Reference 2 links to the wrong article! References 2 through 9 are not mentioned anywhere in the article. This is clearly vandalism. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated the original article. It is still a work-in-progress. I hope we can have constructive discussion here instead of entering into an edit war. Logicwhatelse (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Logicwhatelse, you seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, such as that article content needs to reliably sourced. I must say that if you have difficulty understanding something so simple then I'm glad that I don't trust you anywhere my teeth or gums, and I would be surprised if anyone else reading this would. You have restored vast swathes of unsourced content here. Without sources then there is very little to discuss, because unsourced content should be removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As written above, "It is still a work-in-progress." Your personal feelings are not relevant to the discussion. References are being added. If you have an issue with a particular section, please note it here. Logicwhatelse (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I continue this discussion I'm in grave danger of violating Wikipedia's policy on civility, so I have posted at WP:COI/N#Root analogue dental implant to ask others to check out this situation. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You may check the situation yourself: references have been added. Please note any issues here. Logicwhatelse (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are objections to the original content; I have made some edits to fix the most apparent issues. Per Wikipedia's guideline about conflicts of interest, Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. This seems to be the case here, as I have shown in Special:Diff/881647739. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV.

I have also noticed that at least one of the cited journal articles relies on publication(s) whose first listed author is the COI editor himself. This does not necessarily always have to be a problem, but it should probably be avoided. I have removed the reference, which was used for proving RAI-positive statements, in Special:Diff/881648234.

Another issue may be the lack of current commercial availability of the product. This means that statements like "rarely", when referring to adverse effects, are unprovable at this time. I have removed such a statement in Special:Diff/881648452.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Destructive edits

Yet again, the page has been reduced to a fragment of the original. The majority of the references are gone: 29 citations from diverse international study groups. Sections containing comparison to conventional implants, problems with titanium implants, benefits of zirconia, advantages/disadvantages of this method, and history have all been eliminated. How does this destructive editing improve the quality of the article? The excuse for these edits relies on accusations of COI, but apart from ~ ToBeFree (talk), no one has commented on the actual content of the article in regard to COI. Perhaps because it takes more effort to read the article and verify that it is balanced and neutral than to simply fling accusations around. So, please let's enter a discussion here about how to resolve these issues. We ask for the original article to be reinstated because it contains valuable knowledge that befits an article for Wikipedia. We invite contrary opinions and criticisms. SamHolt6 (talk) suggests that a WP:RFC may be in order. Logicwhatelse (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a proper discussion when you keep insisting on restoring unsourced and blatantly promotional edits. If you just stop doing that then it will be possible to talk about this properly, but don't you realise that including everything that's seen to be wrong with other types of implant, and everything that's good about these, for the most part without any sources, is a sure-fire way to make people suspicious of your motives? And discussions shouldn't be about what Wikipedia editors believe to be true, but about what can be supported by reliable sources in a neutral fashion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Bridger. Is it time to file a report at WP:ANI on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There were (before the reversion) 29 references that supported the majority of statements in the article, particularly advantages and disadvantages. The references represent a diverse set of reputable international study groups. All these were deleted, without any discussion. If you believe any of this material was promotional, please point it out. Logicwhatelse (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are trying to get me to report you at WP:ANI for a possible topic ban from this article, you are doing a great job of it. Last chance; are you going to voluntarily stop creating/restoring unsourced and blatantly promotional edits, or do we have to go to ANI and ask an admin to make you stop creating/restoring unsourced and blatantly promotional edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a new editor on WP. I don't know anything about Logicwhatelse (his/her user page is blank), but I don't see that this action is deserved. I was using Root analogue dental implant for my research, and those references are exactly what I needed. I found the article informative and balanced. He/she obviously has knowledge of the subject, I didn't see anything blatantly promotional. So yes, I do agree that you should be specific with your criticisms. Respectfully, your actions, and those of other editors targeting this article, go against everything I've seen on Help:Getting started. WP is about sharing knowledge, not petty politicking. Noirisblack (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Noirisblack, would you consider this edit[2] to be promotional?

Do you have a theory as to why so many experienced Wikipedia editors have reverted Logicwhatelse's edits as being promotional?[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Which theory seems more likely to be true?

• A bunch of veteran editors, none of which have any financial interest in the outcome, all for some strange reason came to the exact same conclusion.
• Logicwhatelse, who have a direct financial interest in having the Wikipedia page cast root analogue dental implants in as positive light as possible, is introducing pro-RADI material into the article and edir warring to keep it it.

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, after reading through the talk pages, I think this is the first time anyone's actually pointed out the objectionable content! I do have a theory, actually. Obviously the article was written by a specialist (who else is capable of writing about this topic, right?). This device undeniably has advantages over conventional implants. (There are a bunch of sources to back this up.) The veteran editors aren't specialists, and I get the impression that not many of them have actually read the article or followed up the sources. That's just lazy. So you end up with a frustrated author who isn't getting the kind of feedback he/she needs to improve the article to WP standards. Promotional? There is no product for sale, let alone any brand names! Writing about one's work doesn't make it promotional, and editors are here to make sure it's neutral. I didn't see any critiques of the content. So, yeah, in my opinion, this is an injustice. Noirisblack (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time for ANI?

This situation is becoming a huge time sink. Who want to pull the trigger and file a report at WP:ANI? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Page content merged into Dental implant

Now that the page content has been merged to Dental implant, I think we can close this discussion page. The merged content is already being improved by multiple editors at Dental implant. Any discussion about the edits there should happen at Talk:Dental implant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Close and mark as historical. And I think that there should be a link to the closed discussion somewhere on the Dental implant talk page. I don't think it has to be at the top; just an ordinary section with an ordinary comment should be good enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wait, I think it's too soon to close this. You can't compare three paragraphs in the Dental Implant article to what was here originally. A huge amount of information has been lost - this is a unique device that should have its own page, just for interested parties (like me). It's not like there isn't enough space on WP! Do whatever you want on Dental Implant; I'm in favour of putting back most, if not all, of the article as it was originally written. Noirisblack (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is just a bit of housekeeping that means that this should now be discussed at Talk:Dental implant rather than here, because the articles have been merged. If you wish to undo the merge then that talk page is the place to discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A reminder to Wolfgang, sockpuppets are easy to spot. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Noirisblack, I note that you failed to answer the question I posted above. I wonder why that might be. Do you have any connection th the user who uses the name Logicwhatelse? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation, so there's no need for you to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.