has part has part has_part is about dental finding missing tooth finding 1 Bill Duncan 5/14/2012: Our criteria for determing that a tooth is missing is stronger than the clinical criterion. Clinically, a tooth is missing if it is not visible in the oral cavity, in which case an unerrupted tooth is considered missing. However, we include the added criterion that the tooth must also not be present in a radiograph. Thus, if such an exam reveals the presence of such a tooth, the tooth is not considered to be missing. A dental finding that notes the absence of a tooth that is canonically found, as identified by the universal tooth number. The criteria for determing that a tooth is missing includes its absence in a visual exam, a radiographic exam or both. Thus, an unerrupted tooth seen in a radiograph is not considered missing. Bill Duncan 5/14/2012: We have added the necessary condtion that a missing tooth finding is about 'exactly 1 Secondary Dentition'. Titus Schleyer 1/14/2014: This might be a minor point, but clinically the two cases of "tooth missing on visual clinical inspection" and "tooth missing on visual clinical inspection AND on radiograph" might often be conflated in clinical documentation. For instance, if a practitioner does not obtain radiographs, she cannot really find the "ground truth." Bill Duncan 4/12/2012: To think about: There are two cases at least - one where the tooth was never formed in the mouth and the other where the tooth was lost through some process. Presently we do not distinquish between these cases. to think about the proper logical definition: probably there is lacks_part to be fixed obsolete Universal tooth number secondary dentition