Jump to content

Talk:Meth mouth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMeth mouth has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
September 20, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Cut

[edit]

I cut this paragraph:

Key ingredients of methamphetamine manufacturing, including lithium, muriatic acid, sulfuric acid, and lye, are corrosive and can cause skin burns. During meth smoking, these substances are heated, vaporized and swirl throughout the user's mouth, potentially causing irritation, sores and infection. However, in one recent study the most dramatic tooth wear was found among users who preferred snorting the drug, suggesting that mechanisms other than tissue damage may be involved.

The description of how the chemicals in meth react with gum and dental tissue is not scientifically supported.

I also cut the == Opposing views == section which reads as follows:

Some observers contend that there is little clinical data to support the idea of "meth mouth" as distinct from ordinary poor oral hygiene and a lack of proper dental care, though some suggest this is exacerbated in meth users by a tendency to consume sugared beverages. Some commentators have criticized mass media coverage of meth mouth as exhibiting elements of a moral panic.

Jack Shafer has done an excellent series of articles in slate.com about the meth mouth myth, which I will cite in the main article shortly. Ellsworth 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2006 article from journal: "AIDS Patient Care and STDs", which had a more scholarly discussion refuting contaminants as being cause of meth mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catullus Cato (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi there! MITCHTV.NET should be added to your links! Feel FREE TO USE THE IMAGES OF METH MOUTH. 

Dr. Mitchell A. Goodis, DDS

contact mike@berrycc.com
Is the Rotten.com external link strictly necessary? The article takes gratuitous swipes at gay male culture in the process (connecting "meth" with the mythical gay male lisp, for example) and seems, at best, scientifically unsupported. We might just as well link to Something Awful or Encyclopedia Dramatica while we're at it. LadyCrow 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually take time to look at the rotten library it's a very informative place. Also the article in question is more or less bringing up the fact that meth is popular in "gay" culture (or the gay club culture), and not a bigotry.

Yes, methamphetamine is popular in the homosexual group, and I agree, rotten.com is very informative. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Can we have an image of actual meth mouth, and not just suspected meth mouth? A5 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Meth mouth is no different then any other tooth decay including soda drinkers. 68.45.219.63 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) If you wanna go ahead and use Meth, do so. But don't tell people that it's the equivalent to carbonated drinks as it's clearly not the case as everyone else would go round with teeth like the ones shown in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.166.170 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference, tooth decay is tooth decay. C6541 (T↔C) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute truth there is a big value judgement being made when you distinguish between a single small easily filled cavity and total destruction of all teeth -- the two are totally equal -- if your values say that society should provide top-line screw in dentures to all people regardless of income, cause degree, etc. If on the other hand you count typical cost for various causes and assume that the individual bears some responsibility and society should not bear all the costs.... Well its actually pretty rare for carbonated sugar beverages to totally destroy almost all teeth before age 40 (it does happen but <1%) -- whereas regular meth users who do not throw the habit typically are looking at need for full dentures in between 2-5 years from start of serious use....quite often before 30 if they start young.
So the question is should Wikipedia provide information that might lead to someone making value judgments against someone lifestyle? Or is Wikipedia role to bury potential differences and conflicts between value systems?
However, I do agree that some more concrete data would be nice. However, I think there are some definite moral issue preventing unquestionably accurate data from being presented - i.e. you can't give 1000 people x amount of crack at regulated times over 20 years to plot tooth decay (not since WWII black soldiers and VD studies anyway). So basically the data we do have is all highly questionable oral stories from people with good reasons to lie to social workers, dentists and friends (yes some might tell the truth but you cannot tell which ones.) The dentists and social workers will tend to hear understated meth use -- but for street cred reasons meth users will tend to brag and overstate usage to drug culture friends (vs the conservative friend and family). So its natural that conflicts exist between survey reports from government and health organizations and some drug culture urban legends about the "real" causes or how to avoid symptom X. The pressures of social-culture, morale and legal factors make surveys and personal reports highly unreliable as a source of information. But one of the weird things about drug culture is that while they will talk about how all their fellows lie and are untrustworthy when talking in-house...those same people suddenly become 90-100% reliable when dealing with people outside that culture (most likely due to the paranoia needed to stay out of jail and herd behavior tendencies of threatened groups).
Just pointing out that modern academia and Wikipedia often select authorities based on social prestige of activism in the field and overlook real science which would design data gathering to counteract these expected social factors. But then I am dinosaur who has not yet accepted the old Stalinism so popular in politics and politicized science "history and science is what the controller of the (state or) most popular info sources say it is". But I do understand that is why survey studies are now the chief source of "scientific proof" in most sciences that interact with society. Its creating utopia by the sheer power of group centered wishful thinking. 72.182.13.111 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where is support for contention that methamphetamine is not acidic/corrosive?

[edit]

I don't see it in the source that was cited. The Pennsylvania Dental Association seems to be unambiguously opposed: "[t]he acidic ingredients of methamphetamine can damage teeth."Bdell555 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that meth has "ingredients" implies basic ignorance of chemical science. Meth is a chemical compound, not a mixture. The only ingredient in meth is meth. What you need is a source that states unambiguously that meth is an acid, not some local dental association that is likely using the same erroneous assumptions as everyone else.130.18.131.242 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure methamphetamine is a liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure (melting point ~3C). As such, the crystalline form is the hydrochloride salt. When this comes into contact with the mucus membranes, dilute hydrochloric acid is formed. This is the same mechanism that underlies damage to the nasal passages in chronic cocaine abuse. 67.167.206.254 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds plausible to me, as does the idea that meth could have corrosive "ingredients" in the form of contaminants left over from production. But how is it getting into contact with the teeth or gums? It may be a liquid in pure form, but I don't think people commonly consume it that way. Does the smoked form also deposit hydrochloric acid on the teeth? Inhumandecency (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should see the same tooth decay in people using a wide variety of medication, since a lot of them are in the form of HCl or H2SO4 salts. The acidity of a salt solution depends on both the strength of the base and of the acid that make up the compound. For ephedrine HCl, a closely related compound, solutions have a pH around 5.5 . And lets not forget the most common hydrochloride salt: table salt!
Keep in mind that people can taste acidity, and sourness of methamphetamine has not been reported as far as I know. All the theories about meth or contaminants causing acid conditions seem to ignore the relative significance of maybe 100mg meth per day compared to the amount of citric and malic acid many people consume (sour candy, soft drinks). And let's face it, when it's about meth, you can find "reputable" sources for almost any claim, true or false.
To Inhumandecency: I may agree that when smoking meth containing excess HCl, this could in theory lead to dental corrosion. But what would that vapor do to their respiratory tract? Look up chronic exposure to HCl and you'll find:
Occupational exposure to muriatic acid produces a number of chronic conditions for workers. Chronic bronchitis is an effect of long-term inhalation of the acid's fumes along with dermatitis, inflammation of the stomach lining known as gastritis and abnormal skin reactions to sunlight often referred to as photosensitization. According to the EPA, chronic exposure to low amounts of muriatic acid fumes may also discolor the teeth and promote erosion over time. Notice the "may" in the last part.
A study of glass bottle workers finds pulmonary symptoms, no mention of dental erosion. Numerous studies about exposure to soldering fumes in the electronic industry, which contain HCl fumes, have shown to cause occupational asthma (20% of workers), chronic bronchitis, chemical hypersensitivity, chest pain, headaches & dizziness, eye and nose irritation and skin diseases. Once again no mention of dental erosion.
Damn, I should have quit while ahead :-/, found this:
Dental erosion of the incisors was observed in 90% of picklers in a zinc galvanizing plant in the Netherlands, who spent 27% of their time in air containing concentrations of hydrogen chloride above the exposure limit (7 mg/cu m). [IARC. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man. Geneva: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work).p. V54 201 (1992)]
So I guess it's possible if the information given here is correct. It lists one or two others with "positive" results, but the type or level of exposure is unclear.
sorry about the order reversal in answering two posts, but makes more sense as single reply, I think DS Belgium (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Lot of whacking with half-truths of technicalities. First meth is meth is wrong. Only academic or technical production chemists care to label only that one molecule meth (and an acadmeic would also admit that its still a family of stereoscopically similar molecules). And I really doubt liquid is the form of choice for street level drug dealers. In actual legal and pharmaceutical use Meth refers to a family of conveniently transportable and medically absorbable molecular compounds whose active complex organic portion converts back to Meth during use. I do not know which of several possible compounds (salts, alcohols, etc) is most popular on the street but as reading your prescription medicines of various brands and delivery forms (injectable, aerosol, salts, liquids) - there is probably more than one practical.
And its a good observation that the human tongue is not well calibrated for measuring pH and that degree of sourness is dependent on more than pH. Further people's ability to taste is variable by person and drugs (including cigarettes) often reduce or even eliminate your sense of taste. Thus very few people report soda as sour due to the carbonation but rather other tastes make sodas sweet or sour or bitter -- yet soda can erode your teeth in sufficient quantity or bad enough genetics (soft enamel syndromes). So you can't say HCL is not possible due to no one complaining of sour meth...users often don't complain/report about pain injecting heroin so if you aren't a user you probably wouldn't hear much about meth being sour/sweet/bitter/etc.
pH of similar medicines in pill form may not be applicable in that pills are swallowed. Some pills have warning about not chewing for various reasons including pH (don't chew your Vitamin C pills). Smoking may lead to an acidic residue that clings and stays in the mouth and connected nasal passages. Something for a simple study. In any case its not required that acidic properties be EXTREME and the ONLY factor - milder acidity maybe an important synergistic factor with grinding, dry mouth, nutrition, etc.
So as far as direct chemical attacks by meth we need more data on the full pharmaceutical compounding most common on the streets (or distribution of compounds by frequency) plus any other substances commonly used to cut purity and prevent clumping etc. Is there HCL involved? Maybe. But overall fast decay is more probably a case of "the perfect storm" of factors coming together: some chemical softening of enamel plus tooth grinding plus dry mouth plus poor nutrition plus...etc). In the end I think the article just proves the topic is not well researched beyond "at the bar" speculation by potential experts who haven't actually researched it yet. Like a lot of socially controversial topics there isn't much money available for research and a ton of trouble putting reputation at stake for answers large groups of people probably do not want to know. 72.182.13.111 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gives me quite headache too read your arguments about HCL. Methamphetamine: IUPAC ID N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine. An amine is a substitute form of ammonia. An Amine is a strong base. N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine in its pure form is a slighty yellow to colorless oil/oily liquid. Base + Acid --> Salt. Its like saying that Table is made of HCL please do a bit of reasearch. HCL is used too obtaine an easy to isolate solid SALT of the drug. It is possible that the caustic nature of the vaporized salt is damaging the teeth and that his is another factore for the symptoms, but the way it is written in the article it suggests that pure pharmaceutical Methamphetamine (Desoxyn still used for adhd in some countries) does not containe it. MOST DRUGS/PHARMACEUTICALS are used and aplicated as a SALT. 46.114.172.189 (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the conclusion. 2.24.145.6 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Meth mouth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very interesting topic. I've never reviewed a medical article before, so I'm going to need to take care to read the rules about medical sources, but at first glance this looks strong. Review (or, more likely, the first part of the review) to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a very strong article. I want to double-check the rules on sources in medical articles (and a few other bits and pieces) but these should give you some things to look at- the biggest failings seem to be the lack of an image (which may be unavoidable) and the possible US-centrism (which should be avoidable). Note that I've made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added a couple references about meth mouth in other countries. There is a lot more coverage of it in the US than elsewhere. There are a number of articles that discuss meth in other countries, but I've only seen those two that talk specifically about the dental effects of meth in a particular location outside the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the review, I'll try to get started on those soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've done most of your points, most of them were fairly easily fixable. Hopefully the wording is a bit more clear now--MathewTownsend has just given the article a copyedit as well, so hopefully the prose should be in Ok shape. The international sourcing is tricky to track down, but I got a couple in. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great work on the fixes. I'm certainly not an expert on medical literature (or Wikipedia's policies on it) but I am happy that the journals and books are suitable for a medical article, and that the newspapers are appropriate for the non-specialised information for which they are cited. As such, I'm happy to promote the article at this time. I still think the article is a little US-centric, but I think that it not so problematic as to preclude good article status. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meth vs Methamphetamine

[edit]

I've gotten conflicting advice as to whether I should write "Meth" or "Methamphetamine". I've gone with the long form for now, but I can be convinced otherwise. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "ingredient"

[edit]

This word is being flung around **way** too casually in a chemistry-related article. Making meth isn't the same as baking a cake, and the end product isn't the sum of it's components -- ie. "meth contains drain cleaner", etc.

Probably any (and I'm willing to bet **every**) pharmaceutical drug on the market uses H2SO4 and MeOH as reagents in their production, but not a single commenter in the acetaminophen article complains about drain/fuel injection cleaner in their headache tablet ????

I'm not condoning meth in the least, but let's stay factual in an encyclopedia, OK??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit meth labs tend to synthesize a product which contains a significant amount of impurities; this is likely what such a statement is referring to. Completely agree with you otherwise. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New UCLA study of connection between meth use and bad teeth - Nov 2015

[edit]

Just want to make sure that whoever works on this article is aware of the new UCLA study. It was mentioned in UCLA Newsroom's publication UCLA Today online on Dec. 1, 2015

.75.111.13.213 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meth mouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic style on "treatment" section

[edit]

This section is written in "you" passive, as if giving instructions on how to treat meth mouth. I do not believe Wikipeia is meant to be an instruction manual - and this section is not of good encyclopedic style. It also seems to make unconfirmed and exaggerated claims regarding the "oil pulling" method and its supposed health benefits. I am not an expert on the matter, but this should be looked into. I skimmed through the Hamamoto & Rhodus (2008) article. It seemed not to have any mention of the "oil pulling". The citation on the Wikipedia article seems to refer to the beneficial effects of fluoride on methapmhetamine users' oral health, so it appears that the whole oil pulling part is without any citations to credible sources. I will not delete it yet, but like to draw attention to this matter.

This is the section in question:

"Treatment of meth mouth usually attempts to increase the flow of saliva, halt tooth decay, and encourage behavioral changes. Most of the early damage done to your mouth through meth use can be reduced or reversed with the use of an oil pulling routine, if used in accordance to the recreational drug abuse. This is extremely practical because the oils used are easily accessible to everyone, this should be your second line of defense against meth mouth after the use of fluoride toothpaste and flossing. Oil pulling is the practice of sloshing oil around the mouth for 15 minutes once a day or between drug use and then spitting it out. It’s been used throughout Europe to treat mouth illnesses for hundreds of years. This process detoxes the mouth of harmful bacteria while hydrating the gums, and reducing painful inflammation, which significantly reduces the rate of tooth decay. Studies have shown that it is twice as effective at removing harmful bacteria as alcohol based mouthwashes. This method has many other health benefits such as natural whitening, raising the immune system, and strengthening the gums around loose teeth amongst other things. Be cautious whenever using this method, as it can lead to a form of nemonia if the oil is inhaled. It is best to perform oil pulling with the head looking towards the ground, as to avoid swallowing the bacteria or inhaling it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peri-Kaani (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Meth mouf" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Meth mouf. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Meth mouf until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 04:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meth_mouth&oldid=1240936533"