Talk:Oral and maxillofacial pathology

Topics included

Many of the items listed in this navbox are not really items included in an either an oral pathology text book or a dental school oral pathology course. Oral pathologists would not be concern themselves with many of the things listed here, and the things that they would concern themselves with, such as squamous cell carcinoma, aneurysmal bone cysts and lichen planus are overtly absent. Let me know what you think about shifting the quality of this box to a more precise and structured coverage of actual oral pathology. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As it appears currently, everything included in the the navbox would be mentioned in an oral pathology text book but there are still more items missing. I would not remove anything from the box or make it "more precise," as all these items are relevant. - Dozenist talk 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio/name

I think the copyvio is now addressed. I've changed the title to "Stomatognathic disease" to support NIH terminology, but if you would like to change it to ADA terminology, I have no objection. --Arcadian (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from Oral pathology ?

This is a poor choice imo. The specialty of oral pathology is surely notable enough for its own page. After all, the other specialties do not redirect like this...lesion (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Name and scope

The lead states "mouth disease refers to the diseases of the mouth ("stoma") and jaw [1] ("gnath")." Would it not be more accurate to say "mouth disease refers to diseases of the mouth"? The 2 main issues here are the name of the page, which is directly generated from the intended scope of the article.

If it is going to be about mainly diseases occurring in the mouth, suggest "oral pathology", "mouth disease", disorder or other similar variations.

If it is going to be about diseases of the mouth, jaws and face, suggest "oral and maxillofacial pathology", "orofacial disease" "stomatognathic disorder" and similar variations.

If it is going to be about the speciality which deals with the histopathologic diagnosis of biopsied lesions taken from the mouth, in my country this is a subspeciality of dentistry termed "oral pathology" or less commonly "oral and maxillofacial pathology". Likely varies around the world. As far as I am aware, there is no wikipedia article so far about this specialty so it would be good to have some content about it.

When restructuring this article, it would be good to list the most common reasons for people to visit a dentist, viz. dental decay, gum disease and bad breath in that order of prevalence. Lesion (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Head and neck pathology

Seems to be a stub duplicating info on the above page. Lesion (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Tentatively support. Difficult because name is a bit non-specific. Thoughts on merging with Otolaryngology? LT90001 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

But listen to what that article defines head and neck pathology as: "the subspecialty of surgical pathology and dentistry which [...]". It is describing oral pathology (in the UK) and oral and maxillofacial pathology (US). Lesion (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merges

• Tooth disease (unreferenced, one sentence stub)
• Tooth abnormality (unreferenced, 2 sentence stub)
• Dental disease (duplication of scope with this page, poor referencing and unencyclopedic language)

Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Seems the only distinguishing feature of the articles is the ICD-numbers as of now. If these are preserved I don't see any reason to object to a merge. CFCF (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: The first two articles are stubs which could be redirected. Dental disease is an introductory article whereas this is a technical one and there is very little actual overlap between them. These are the only two which have substantial links to them. I think you mean that the Dental disease article has non-technical rather than non-encyclopedic language. Given that Wikipedia is supposed to be for general use, I think this is a merit. Chris55 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest merging those three articles but keeping them separate from this article which has a much broader scope. --WS (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

To put this in context, I completely restructured this article some time ago. "tooth/dental disorders" is contained within the scope of this page. The teeth are oral structures... However, if the consensus is to keep it separate I will merge these 3 articles into one article about tooth disease, and keep any non-tooth stuff here. Thank you for opinions. Lesion (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Chris55: no I actually mean unencylopedic language, e.g.: "Dental Diseases can be prevented by taking proper care of your teeth. Brushing, flossing, and regular visits to the dentist will help prevent these diseases." There are also a few other examples, and I feel this tone needs to go from the article. Lesion (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see that you have put a lot of work into this article and I don't wish to change it. I haven't a clue what 'maxillofacial' means, the article doesn't explain and I have no inclination to find out. But as I said, the Dental disease article deals with different issues. There is no mention here of caries, gingivitis and periodontitis which is mainly what that article deals with. So why is there any reason to merge? As to your example of language, that uses English that anyone can understand and that is what an encyclopedia is about. It is not designed for a scientific audience which needs absolute precision of language, though there is room for technical articles. See WP:TECHNICAL and in particular WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Chris55 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel the language which addresses the reader directly ("you", "your") is unencyclopedic. This article (oral and maxillofacial pathology) needs a lot of work too. No article should be worded to exclude a non scientific readership. To clarify, oral = mouth, maxillae = jaws, facial = face. I have altered the lead definition to address this point. I changed the name of this article originally because the name of the specialty is "oral and maxillofacial pathology" (in some parts of the world just called oral pathology or head and neck pathology but with same or similar scope of competence), and this term also covers the conditions we talk about on this page.

If we look at the lead of dental disease: "Dental diseases may affect the teeth, the gums, or other tissues and parts of the mouth". There is duplication of scope between these 2 articles. The way forwards as I see it is either:

• Make dental disease restricted to diseases of the teeth and gums
• Merge dental disease into this article, since diseases of teeth and gums are very much within the scope of this article and the specialty oral and maxillofacial pathology. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have already 2 opposed to merging this article with the others, so I'm not quite sure why you're going on about it. How many more do you want? Chris55 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That was non-responsive to my question. Consensus is not based purely on numerical "votes" (even if it was this would be 50-50) but the logic of the arguments. In this case, I do not see any logic in keeping 2 articles with the same scope separated. Lesion (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Support merge of those three articles to Dental disease, retain oral and maxillofacial pathology for pathologies in all other oral areas, these topics (dental disease and maxillofacial pathology) are huge topics that need their own articles. I think that as these would be the parent article for two professions (dentists, maxillofacial surgeons/ENT) it would be better to keep them separate if possible. --LT910001 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I would support merging the majority of articles and content into this page. However I don't think the article Tooth disease should be merged. In my mind the hierarchy should be OM pathology -> tooth disease, gum disease -> specific disease. So, I support merging all the dental articles, but feel it may be better to retain a more in-depth coverage of teeth in tooth disease. Have you pinged WP:DENTISTRY? --LT910001 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with the consensus that is developing here. I feel I am not explaining myself efficiently and this is my fault, but also that the lead of these articles is so poor that it is misleading people in their judgement.

A diagram to help understand the stomatognathic/oral and maxillofacial/orofacial region.

• There is a specialty called "oral and maxillofacial pathology" in the UK and US. Sometimes this is just termed "oral pathology" in UK, and in both UK and US sometimes termed "head and neck pathology" even though this does not necessarily imply any wider scope into ear, nose and throat (ENT) pathology and certainly not anything to do with the brain or spine. I don't know much about rest of world, but I suspect "oral and maxillofacial pathology" is the norm.
• This specialty is essentially laboratory-based, pathology. Biopsies, which have been cut out of patients and sent to them by other doctors and surgeons, are looked at under a microscope to achieve a histopathologic diagnosis. There is more to it than this, but this is the core description.
• Pathology of the oral and maxillofacial region, which corresponds to the scope of competence of oral and maxillofacial pathologists, is as follows: mouth, including structures in the mouth like teeth, gums, tongue; lips and facial skin (to an extent); salivary glands, jaws ("maxillae"), including hard tissue pathology of these bones, and disorders of the temporomandibular joints, muscles of mastication and facial expression, and any tissues or structures in and associated with the mouth. To an extent there is overlap with ENT pathology (i.e. nasal cavity, paranasal air sinuses, pharynx), but often only in the case that these pathologies also involve the mouth. We should not lump ENT and oral and maxillofacial pathology together. ENT in most people's minds is primarily a surgical discipline.
• Here, we have 2 articles which are covering the same essential topic: pathology of the oral and maxillofacial regions. Dental disease is very much part of oral and maxillofacial pathology, and it is artificial to keep them separated. I would go further to state that the vast majority of oral and maxillofacial pathoses are represented by disorders originating in the teeth and gums.
• In this context, I do not understand the logic which says keep these similarly scoped articles separated. Lesion (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment Should Dental pathology be thrown into this mix? I'm going to flag it to this discussion since it seems to me that this should be merged with the other three listed. As to where, I cannot say. I'm equivocating between one article and two, one for the dental diseases and focusing this article on the medical specialty. Once you get past the conditions treated by general dentists and oral surgeons, you might as well do a full head and neck pathology article. The maxillofacial overlaps with otorhinolaryngology, and I don't think I have a pathology book with a "maxillofacial pathology" chapter. Novangelis (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Novangelis: Yes it should imo as it again is duplication in scope with this page. Thanks for highlighting that. Traditionally ENT and maxillofacial surgery would have been much closer, with OMF being less prominent, but nowadays the opposite tends to be true. This is the "go-to" book for the specialty: [1]. After reading this book, it will hopefully be clear that the term "head and neck pathology" (when used by oral and maxillofacial types) does not include all pathology that occurs in the head and neck. Some, but not all, ENT pathology is implied by this term, but mostly because they also involve the mouth. Pathology of the spine and brain is not implied by the term, and there is less amphasis on the craniofacial region. Lesion (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it "inside out" having "Head and neck pathology" redirect to "Oral and maxillofacial pathology". In terms of regional pathology, a broader field should not redirect to a narrower field. In terms of field, oral and maxillofacial pathology is a dental specialty[2] and head and neck pathology is an non-accredited medical subspecialty. It might be better to redirect head and neck pathology to anatomical pathology (and resolve what would become a circular redirect).Novangelis (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I can understand this. We did have a separate article called head and neck pathology before (here: [3]), but its scope was identical to this page (or whatever this page was called before I moved it). In the real world (or at least in my understanding), head and neck pathology is virtually synonymous with oral and maxillofacial pathology, but likely implies some ENT pathology as well. C.f. Head and neck cancer which intuitively one would imagine would refer to any cancer that may occur in the head and neck, but instead it refers mostly to SCC or the oral cavity, nasal cavity and paranasal air sinuses and aerodigestive tract. Brain cancer is not included in the topic head and neck cancer according to some. Confusing and poorly organized, but that is life. Lesion (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@LT910001: Thank you for suggestion, but I believe that wikiproject is inactive. I personally think it is better to merge tooth disease here since in the real world the same pathologist deals with those samples as would non-tooth and gum related pathoses of the oral and maxillofacial region like squamous cell carcinoma. Based on LT's suggestion how about we sort this mess into:

• Oral and maxillofacial pathology-- discussing both the specialty and some example pathoses of the region. We should not have 2 such articles of the same scope. Oral pathology and head and neck pathology should redirect here.
  • Tooth disease-- a dedicated article to "tooth disease", which would be linked from the main OMF pathology article. I would rather call this article "dental pathology" but this name has clearly lead to confusion about scope over time. Dental disease, dental pathology, tooth abnormality and all such articles should therefore redirect here, since dental-- "tooth".
  • Periodontal disease-- a dedicated article to "gum diseases", which would be linked from the main article above. We already have such an article, although it is a bit of a mess. Lesion (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lesion:While the wp:WikiProject Dentistry page is marked as inactive, that may not be entirely correct. This list indicates many of its articles are being edited, and many of the editors are among Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dentistry/Participants. I'd suggest that it can't hurt to try, and could even help to reanimate that project.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I posted there. From experience there is little interest. Lesion (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Late to the mix, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. There's 2 questions here, what is the scope of the article and what is the name of the article. I don't think we should approach these questions based on how a layperson would search the encyclopedia rather than how we think of it academically. Rather than oral & maxillofacial pathology (which is what many textbooks are named) a layperson will look for disease of the face, mouth and throat (which is what most textbooks cover and how we currently categorize articles). My suggestion would be to name the article based on layperson terminology (Diseases of the face, mouth and neck) and create it as a list (as it currently is) then develop smaller articles for each topic or point to the relevant subject based on etiology or anatomic location (both of which get used). I agree with merging the other articles. Bigger question, is there any significant use to this article? Doesn't the list of ICD codes save the same purpose? Ian Furst (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused: you've used a negative in your second sentence but the rest of your argument seems to support the positive. Chris55 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many thoughts falling out at once - sorry. I don't think this page serves any significant purpose but I neither created nor maintain it. If we deleted it, I'd oppose the merge and keep the smaller more specific pages (and create other smaller more specific pages based on the ICD-10 lists). If we're to keep this page, I'd rename it and complete the merge. Ian Furst (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New organization of oral pathology topics

I have organized these series of articles as follows:Lesion (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Parent article:

• Oral and maxillofacial pathology-- scope: pathology of the mouth, jaws, salivary glands muscles of mastication and temporomandibular joints

Sub-articles:

• • Tooth pathology-- scope: congenital and acquired tooth diseases; redirects from dental disease, tooth abnormality, tooth disorders, tooth disease
  • Periodontal pathology-- scope: diseases of the periodontium; however I feel that gum disease should redirect to chronic periodontitis or periodontitis
  • Salivary gland disease
  • Tongue disease
  • etc.

Gastroenterology?

I've had a quick look at the info box and it says Oral & Maxillofacial falls under the "speciality" of "gastroenterology". I'd assume the speciality is neuromuscular or oral medicine, I'm pretty certain than it's nothing to do with the digestive system though. I understand that under ICD10 it may fall under this section, but it just doesn't sound right to me. Arkhangelsk185 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oral cavity is part of digestive system. Oral and maxillofacial pathology is a specialty in its own right, so I feel that the specialty part of the infobox is redundant here. Not sure how one would hide it, perhaps Doc James May know. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is not a disease should not have a disease infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's acting as a kind of parent article about all oral and maxillofacial diseases, also with a section at the end about omfp as a specialty. Yes perhaps infobox disease is inappropriate here. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing things by adding infobox occupation. For future reference if you want the specialty field not to appear, just leave it blank. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)