Talk:Veneer (dentistry)

Contradiction

It seems to me that the article contradicts itself. "Composite veneers are becoming more popular as they are easy to repair, and porcelain veneers have a tendency to fracture," suggests that porcelain veneers are less durable than composites, while "They [porcelain veneers] are said to be somewhat more durable and less likely to stain than veneers made of composite," suggests that porcelain veneers are more durable. --Weeble 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No drilling-needed veneers

SamG1978 has placed this edit:

Newer veneer products have been developed so that no drilling or filing is required. This is preferable as it means less pain and minimal damage to the patient's underlying tooth.

I reverted it for two reasons. First, the reference used is clearly advertising to NuSmile. WP:EL says to avoid "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" and "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." Second, no-drilling veneers is not always "preferable". In fact, in many cases, they are much worse than traditional veneers because without recontouring the teeth the resulting veneers are bulky and not esthetically pleasing. In some cases, the no-drilling veneers are acceptable, but the text did not make the distinction clear. Unless someone objects, I will revert the change tomorrow. - Dozenist talk 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point re: the pros and cons of drilling free veneers however the text should definitely have some reference to the fact that such systems are available and that the modern systems are as thin as possible. What would you suggest (Perhaps you could add some pors and cons) because just reverting the text means the article is somewhat innacurate. Many thanks for getting back to me. Thank you for your time. SamG1978 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can write up when I get some time later today, but so you have no objection to removing the external link as well, correct? - Dozenist talk 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It'll need a reference to something as a citation but sure. As long as the text reflects the existance of the none-drilled systems. SamG1978 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I added new text. A proper reference can still be added, but I have not founded one online yet. I of course could use a textbook but there would be less access to it. So I will just wait and see if a good quality, online reference can be found. - Dozenist talk 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(The only person who can make the decision is a licensed dentist with the proper education and experience to perform surgery. Cutting away tooth structure is surgery. I question all of your expert opinions. These statements could constitute practicing with out a license in many states. As to be able to evaluate, diagnose and recommend treatment is not allowed with out a license. For example above,” This is the preferable as it means less pain and minimal damage ..." is a statement which most likely would not be made by a Doctor of Dental Surgery or a Doctor of Dental Medicine with a license. I would be very careful as you could be held liable acting as you seem to be acting as an expert in this area. Is SamG1978 an expert?)

References

Neutrality of tone

As the article progresses from the end of the History section onward, it sounds more and more like a person who sells veneers talking to a person who's thinking about getting veneers. There is weasel language ("They are said to be somewhat more durable...") without citation; Indications and Alternatives lack all wikifying and citation and include the phrases "A cosmetic dentist may be able to show you how the end result may look..." and "porcelain veneers are the preferred solution despite their higher cost."

Re-writing this in a factual and reader-neutral tone with citations will be a bit of an undertaking though. 76.105.36.199 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There seams to have been few edits since Jan 2009, and I think we're probably not to bad here. Any objection to me removing the POV banner?Pflat (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The language the reporter complained about (which I agree smacks of POV) is gone. The present writing's hardly encyclopedic, but I wouldn't say it's POV. Removing the tag. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Dentist Porcelain Veneers.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Los Angeles Dentist Porcelain Veneers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

www.1-800-VENEERS.com advertisement

It seems to me that too much emphasis is put on the website www.1-800-VENEERS.com It adds no value to the article and it's obviously self-advertisement. There is even a direct backlink to the website that uses the keyword "veneers" So it's not only self advertisement through Wikipedia but also SEO optimization. This needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.56.51 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)