Talk:Oral candidiasis

Self-treatment with orange juice?

The article states that 'For adults, mild cases can be first treated by drinking acidic substances, such as orange juice, to make a harsher environment for the yeast and eating yogurt to replenish bacterial count that controls the yeast'. Can this be verified? Various sources on the net specify acid environments being the cause of candidiasis; would fruit juice with it's acid and sugar content not just increase the problem further? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.47.141 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Drug users?

The article says drug users are at higher risk of oral thrush. This seems vague to me, what kind of drug is it referring to?

It may be a lifestyle thing - IV drug users are not known for having a particularly wholesome diet and often exposed to the elements. Alternatively, it could be that needle-sharing has led to AIDS. But the reference is probably to IV drug use only. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is incorrect (or misleading at least.) I think it should just refer to steroids (often used for asthma medication) and possibly other perscription drugs. I do not believe the condition is common among recreational drug users as the link would suggest. I have had asthma and developed thrush from the medication, and have also researched recreational drug use (purely for informational puposes :-)) and never heard it mentioned so I think I'm well enough informed. I'm changing it to reflect this, if anyone has a problem revert and say something here.

Any hormonal drugs can be a factor in candida, and that is why I mentioned infertility treatment (so many durgs!), but Hormone Replacement Therapy or the Pill can also be included.

Copyright Violation

I haven't check the rest of the article, but the Symptoms section is a direct copy from http://www.netdoctor.co.uk See http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/oralthrush.htm and compare the symptoms, it's verbatim. --Karuna8 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted - I have rewritten this section. The section on who is at risk also starts with the same items, but additional items are also included in the WP article. The intro also seems to take heavily from the NetDoctor intro, although does not seem to be a direct lift. As a clear source to the structure of this artivle, I've added the Netdoctor as a a reference to the article. I'll upgrade the infobox and there some wackly claims of curing by diet that need citation tagging (or WP:Bolder would be to just delete). David Ruben ^Talk 00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Original source

• Pillinger, John; Andersen, Flemming; & Søderberg, Ulla (6 July 2005). "Oral thrush (fungal infection in the mouth)". NetDoctor. Retrieved 2007-03-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Is the "copyvio'd" statement relevant any more?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quack?

To me, the link http://www.yeastinfectionbase.com/mouth-yeast-infection.php looks like a quack site advertising a dubious cure. I propose to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.65 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

was bold. removed it. 76.104.20.106 (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is advertising. Removed it again. Whether it's done with good intend or not, keep Wikipedia advertisment free. 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baileysbeads (talk • contribs)

Potential sources for treatment and prevention sections

No general cochrane RV unfortunately but we have special groups: cancer patients [1] and HIV infection [2]. Lesion (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Candida species

I am pretty sure that when saying "candida species" nonspecifically as opposed to, for example, a particular type of candida such as C. albicans, then no italics are used. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Inhaled steroids

(originally posted by ‎Garnhami) I still feel there should be a little separate section on this on the oral candidiasis page.

It is mentioned on the page, I know, but not very "clear" to be seen. If it was mentioned as a separate part, people would notice it faster.

I think I'll add it again, re-arrange it and maybe that way it can stay there?

When I went through the article, I found it rather "hidden" information. --‎Garnhami

Inhaled steroids as a predisposing factor are correctly discussed in terms of immunosuppression/immunocompromize. I feel that to place inhaled steroids in its own section gives the false impression that it is a mechanism other than immunosuppression. I fully support adding more info on inhaled steroids, but oppose changing the current layout of sections as I feel these are most logical way of covering the causes. Could even create of a ultra detailed sub article restricted to this particular cause of oral candidiasis per WP:Summary style. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on what constitutes a reliable source for medical content (a review article on pubmed or a good medical textbook -- preview on google books to read-- would probably be OK).

some info that is not currently covered that would be good to cover imo:

• how likely are inhaled steroids to cause candidiasis? Are any particular steroids worse than others? Dose? Length of treatment?
• Is this particular cause common next to other causes, such as denture wearing? (other sources have stated that dentures are the most common cause of oral candidiasis, e.g. see Denture-related stomatitis for more background)
• Use of spacer device with inhaled steroids to prevent candidiasis. already covered in treatment section. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I expanded content on inhaled steroids and steroids in general, in both causes and treatment sections. Still feel that steroids should be discussed as part of the immunodeficiency section of causes, but please feel free to seek wider consensus. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw you edited it a bit, I like it. However I noticed you removed this part: " Corticosteroid nasal sprays or drops are sometimes used to deliver corticosteroids directly to the nasal mucosa in conditions such as nasal polyps and sinusitis. Such use of steroids does not typically result in oral candidiasis." I think you also added it before?

I feel you should just leave it, it is good information to be honest.

Maybe you are right that it should be a subsection of the immunodeficiency, but then again: it is really is not the case since it is more a story about a "local" immunodeficiency (and it is not really even a deficiency, you just "lower" the immunsystem a bit). To me it feels that the corticosteroids should have their own part because many people with asthma (and inhalers) suffer from this. Almost everyone that uses such inhalers will at some point get this type of trush and I think you should be able to find it clearly written and easy to spot on wiki. By giving it a separate title or section people will notice it it easier (not everyone reads the entire article nor uses a "search" to find it.

+ I also feel that if you put it really together with "immunodeficiency" it kinda seems like those people with oral trush have an immune problem which is not really the case. Garnhami (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Update:

maybe this is an idea:

change the "Predisposing factors" with another title, something like Immunodeficiency or Immunsystem. And then explain what is said in the predisposing chapter + immunodeficiency chapter , but together, as 1 big subsection because they do belong to each other, it is 1 big story. And then another title with external parameters or something... Something like;

1 big title: Causes followed by the subtitles: A) Species B) Immunystem C) external influences (with here the short chapters on smoking, antibiotics, inhaled steroids, dry mouth, denture etc...

To me this makes a bit more sense.

The Predisposing factors for me are a bit weird as a big title and I would put the "immunsystem" (and link with deficiency) more at the top.

Well just my 5 cents.

Garnhami (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The info on steroid nasal sprays/drops was not directly linked to oral thrush, and also unreferenced. If we have a good source stating that steroid nasal sprays don't cause oral thrush then would support adding this. Presumably might cause candidiasis in the nose, but Idk.

I understand what you are saying about inhaled steroids being a different cause from steroid medicine which is swallowed (i.e. systemic steroids). I feel it is more orderly to deal with all steroids in one place, while talking about immunosuppression/immunodeficiency as a cause. Will ask for more opinions on WT:MED. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We have it placed prominently in the common predisposing factors box.

Steroids are immunosuppressants Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)