Non Traumatic vs. Atraumatic

[sklar-careym]

Are these the same thing? If so, which one should we use when describing a pattern or working surface style? i.e. 31-7107

[sklar-careym]

correction: i.e 31-7055

[sklar-sherryp]

@mwmalinowski @sklar-careym

Searched Sklar catalogs and competitor catalogs.

Search results indicate the following:

instances of "non-traumatic" (hyphenated) in Sklar catalogs = 8 instances of "non-traumatic" (hyphenated) in competitor catalogs = 5

instances of "atraumatic" in Sklar catalogs = 234 instances of "atraumatic" in competitor catalogs = 730

I say that we designate using "atraumatic" in the Style-Guide.

[mwmalinowski]

@sklar-sherryp I think that's a reasonable conclusion

[sklar-sherryp]

I will add this designation to the data style guide.

Question though - are the DeBakey and Cooley style teeth reflected in Working Surface Style because of the fact that the teeth are atraumatic and that makes the working surface style unique?

I'm thinking we should provide an explanation as to why these particular instruments with this style teeth are reflected in Working Surface Style when all other teeth are in Tip End...?

[mwmalinowski]

Visually they look like teeth; procedurally their purpose is more akin to that of serrations. Teeth are usually only on the very tips of the instrument; DeBakey/Cooley teeth generally run from the tips down through most of the jaws

Because DeBakey/Cooley teeth conceptually exist somewhere between teeth and serrations, I had to pick one field and stick with it. I chose Working Surface Style because I thought it would be more useful to filter Serrated vs. Atraumatic Teeth than to filter 3x4 Teeth vs. Atraumatic Teeth.

This is just the thought process I used when I set this precedent. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if asked.