Talk:Meth mouth

Cut

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)

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)

please add this link

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)

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)

Image

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

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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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)

• "Meth mouth is a dental disease" Is it really a "disease"? Would "condition" not be more accurate?
  • Agreed, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I worry that "abuser" carries a particularly judgemental overtone- a more neutral term would probably be "user". Everyone can agree that people are using meth, but whether they're "abusing" meth is a potentially questionable claim.
  • I hadn't thought of that, but I'm fine with the change. I left one occurrence in since it was a quote. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Meth, a highly addictive drug that produces a dramatic increase in energy and euphoria, is easily accessible in most areas of the United States." I worry that this US mention risks giving the article a US-bias; do you perhaps have a source stating that the meth problem is more serious in the US than elsewhere? (This is also a very real problem in the culture section)
  • Yeah, I removed that for now, it is pretty common in some other areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "cervical regions of teeth, where the tooth surface narrows at the junction of the crown and the root" Some links here would be helpful.
  • Added a couple links. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "occasional hygiene" Odd phrase
  • Rephrased, a bit wordier but hopefully better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the last paragraph of "characteristics" belongs there. It's important information, certainly; it could even be given its own section.
  • Moved it to its own section, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the mechanism by which it does is unclear" > the mechanism by which it does so is unclear?
  • Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• It seems very odd that the first wikilink to saliva is so far down the article
  • Yep, my mistake, fixed now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "salivatory nuclei: the drug is thought to decrease saliva by stimulating inhibitory alpha 2 adrenoreceptors in the nuclei" Suddenly very technical- explanation/links? (Also, is this directly related to the following line? It's not clear right now.)
  • Yeah, that was pretty messy. I've simplified it some. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the ADA" American Dental Association or something, I'm assuming? A link would be good.
  • Oops, written out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "that Pilocarpine" Does this need a capital P?
  • Nope, removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• The article really feels like it is lacking a picture- I came across this one on Commons, if you're interested.
  • Ok, I just put it in. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• You provide publishers for journals and some newspapers, but not others. Consistency is good. Also, look at the way you list the authors on the Treadwell source.
  • Ok, I think I've standardized those two issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Thanks a lot for the review, I'll try to get started on those soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)

Meth vs Methamphetamine

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)