Talk:Pericoronitis

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dentistry High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pericoronitis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

According to my dental resources, Pericoronitis is not only affiliated with wisdom teeth. Pericoronitis can be present with any imfection that falls into the muscle area.

Correct, pericoronitis is inflammation of soft tissues surrounding the crown of any tooth, but usually wisdom teeth. Lesion (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical image needed for this article

A nice close up of the inflammed area around a lower wisdom tooth, since this is the typical presentation. Something like these would be good. Lesion (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provided by a user

Done Lesion (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cut the bloat

This article is not very succinct. It has excess bloat and is in desperate need of liposuction. for example the intro should not talk about all the variations of pain causing events, nor should it describe the signs and symptoms. There should not be a duplication of any other pages. "See main article" often means the following content is just excess fat. example: extraction section. Just mention tooth can be extracted with a hyperlink, done. No need for the detailed extraction process. Bouncingmolar (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for feedback. General critical comments do not usually help improve any article. However you give 2 specifics:

About the lead. I do not think should be changed. The lead is supposed to summarize the whole content of the article. Decay commonly occurs in wisdom teeth because they are hard to clean and they might be tilted and therefore attract food debris. Tooth decay and food packing between the wisdom tooth and the tooth in front are just as common causes of "wisdom tooth" pain as pericoronitis. I feel we should make this point early in the article.
Your suggestion to reduce the tooth extraction section to only one sentence. It is not particularly duplication of content with other articles, if you read the section you will see that most content is directly related to pericoronitis. I feel since wisdom teeth will often be the first extraction a person experiences, it is not sufficient to merely provide one sentence and a link to another article. This would be inadequately covering the topic. It is also necessary to list here how teeth involved with pericoronitis may be at higher risk of various complications. Lesion (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, there is alot of good information in here particularly if you compare to the first entry for this page. Its pretty good overall, just tends to waffle a bit in places with circular sentences and duplications. Also some of the information is slightly out of sequence (eg as I am editing the causes/eitiolgy section it jumps from acute to chronic to infection to trismus to infection to chronic (slight exaggeration but hopefull you know what I mean. Don't worry I think the sequence is starting to take shape. I'll probably accidentally introduce extra fullstops and grammatical errors by rearranging the sentences but thats easily fixed. Bouncingmolar (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are a lot of similarities between the signs and symptoms section and the etiology section. Perhaps they can be merged under a singular banner. Perhaps etiology and signs and symptoms have a similar meaning anyway. Etiology used to be called causes, but the section contains many signs and symptoms rather than causes. Bouncingmolar (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles follow a standard layout as defined in the WP:MEDMOS, sources are selected according to WP:MEDRS. Lesion (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for that Lesion, looks good. Following that manual of style, the headings were fine. I still think some of the items contained in the causes section are more appropriate to the signs and symptoms, based on the the descriptions about what kind of content should be in each. Shouldn't be too hard to fixBouncingmolar (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a good article I could use as an example which uses the manual of style you provided. You'd think periodontal disease would be a good one... anyway the diabetes one looks pretty good. They list signs and symptoms such as polyuria but don't talk about how it happens. In causes it doesn't even get a mention I don't know if we should go that far to remove the explanations of the symptoms, but its a pretty good benchmark. If you see a better example i'm all eyes.Bouncingmolar (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to use the signs and symptoms section to make a straight list of signs and symptoms, and then explain why these occur in the causes section. There is also an optional "pathophysiology" section, but I tend to leave this out and discuss all that jazz in causes. I see you have structured this section more logically now, looks good. Lesion (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think i've given it a pretty good work over. Theres probably a few grammar erros since I spliced a few sentences together. Bouncingmolar (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]