Talk:Cracked tooth syndrome

"Educational" Sites/ Tooth Slooth

There are so many reasons why this is an inappropriate reference.

1. The statements being made require no reference at all.

2. The tooth slooth site is clearly not a reliable source for the topic of cracked teeth.

3. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, to "educational" sites or otherwise.

4. Tooth Slooth is a commercial product and a link to their site is not warranted.

It is unclear that the commercial product "tooth slooth" should even be mentioned by name in such an article.

In what way is this commercial website a reliable source? It is not wp:reliable source about Tooth Slooth since it is not a third party source and it is not a reliable source about cracked teeth as it is not by a cited person nor does it have any references of its own (and if it did, those would be preferable as primary sources) BobKawanaka (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tooth Slooth is included because the CDA, among other organizations, recommends its use. The sentence is supported by the source, thus it is a necessity. How would the product manufacturer's website not be a reliable source for the condition? They produce a tool used to diagnose the syndrome. If commercial website's links were disallowed, you'd find that a fair amount of our articles would go on with less references. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cracked cusp syndrome

In my part of the world, people say "cracked cusp syndrome" e.g. here [1]. It sounds like the same thing to me, or maybe this is a specific type of cracked tooth syndrome? Lesion (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)