Date post: | 02-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alison-mckellar |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
1/37
Alison McKellar79#Mechanic#Street,#Camden,#Maine#04843#Phone:##(207)#619>1530##!#E>Mail:#:#[email protected]#
Dear Mid-Coast Health Professional,
Almost 50 years ago, in an effort to address high rates of tooth decay among children, thiscommunity made a decision to start adding fluoride to our tap water, which originates from Mirror Lakeand serves about half the residents in the towns of Camden, Rockport, Rockland, Thomaston, and smallparts of Owls Head and Warren. After spending some time reviewing the history of the scientific researchand public policies regarding fluoride, I believe its time for our community to re-examine what we havelearned and what has changed in the 44 years since fluoridation began here. I am writing to ask that, as alocal health professional, you take a moment to review the current literature on the subject so as to beprepared for any questions you might receive from patients in the coming months.
Like most people, I had never thought much about fluoride. Recently, I began to wonder if my 3-year-old
son should start using fluoridated toothpaste. A quick web search will tell you that children under the ageof 2 should not, and the instructions on the back of the tube that I use say that children from 2-6 shoulduse only a pea-sized amount and be monitored by an adult to minimize swallowing. The label also reads,"If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control centerimmediately." Well, even with constant monitoring, my 3 year old accidentally swallows almost all thetoothpaste that goes in his mouth, so I wanted to know exactly how much fluoride he would be likely toingest and how much would be too much. At that point, water fluoridation wasn't even on my radar. Ifound that a pea-sized amount of typical fluoride toothpaste (1000 ppm fluoride) contains about .25 mg offluoride, roughly the same amount of fluoride as 10.5 ounces of our tap water, which averages .8 mg perliter. This came as a surprise to me, so I wanted to know a little more.
What is fluoride? How much is enough for a 3 year old? How much is too much?
It turns out that these are not easy questions to answer and experts disagree. What we do know is that the
CDC reports that 41% of adolescents (12-15 year olds) now have some form of dental fluorosis , apermanent staining of the enamel caused by the ingestion of too much fluoride during the years when theteeth are developing. This is nearly double the figure that was reported 20 years ago and 4-5 times whatwas predicted when fluoridation first began.
In 2007, the ADA and the AAP released a warning to parents saying that babies who are exclusivelybottle fed with formula reconstituted with fluoridated water may be at an increased risk for dentalfluorosis. They suggest using fluoride-free or low fluoride water if parents are concerned. Although I waslucky enough to breastfeed my own children, I know that this is not a reality for some, and buying bottledwater is unrealistic for many low income parents. Further, no pediatrician or maternity nurse ever advisedme that, if I stopped breastfeeding, I should consider mixing my babys formula with fluoride free water.Even when a lactating mother drinks fluoridated water, her breast milk contains almost no fluoride (about4 parts per billion), which means that in many cases, bottle fed babies may be getting up to 250 timesas much fluoride as breastfed babies. The ADA and the AAP have generally stated that the permanentstaining of the tooth enamel is only cosmetic, yet there is no scientific consensus on how to categorizedental fluorosis. Since we know that ingested fluoride is also stored commulatively in other parts of thebody, such as bones and the pineal gland, many experts view dental fluorosis as a biomarker for othertypes of fluoride toxicity. To quote Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry at the Universityof Toronto, it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluorideingestion."
Over the past several months, I have researched this issue extensively. I have consulted countless medicaljournals, performed MedLine searches of scholarly, peer-reviewed research, met multiple times with RickKnowlton and others from the Maine Water Company, spoken with the Director of the Maine Drinking
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
2/37
Water Program, and read newspaper archives relating to the history of fluoridation in our water district. Ibegan my research 100% open-minded. In fact, I was swayed in the direction of favoringfluoridation. After all, I have fluoridated water in my own home and fluoride removal is expensive. Unlikechlorine, it cannot be removed by a simple Brita filter. I've been drinking it, giving it to my 3 year old, andeven prided myself on my eco-conscious avoidance of bottled water. In general, I tend to side with thegovernment on most public health measures. I vaccinate my children, etc, etc... Still, after reading theopinions of many experts on both sides of this issue, it seems like a strange way to prevent tooth decay inour community, a community in which only 50% of the population is served by municipal water.
As a 29 year old mother of a baby and toddler who grew up in the area, graduated from CHRHS, andmoved back to Camden about 5 years ago, I was a little surprised not to have heard more aboutfluoridation in the past. No water bill or newsletter from the water company ever mentioned anythingabout the water being fluoridated. New Hampshire recently passed legislation requiring that watercustomers be warned that mixing infant formula with tap water could increase the risk of fluorosis, buthere, no such policy is in place. Was I the only one who didnt know that something (a non-nutrient) isbeing added to our water for a purely dental benefit? Yet in my discussions with others my age, I've foundthat many people who are not old enough to have been a part of the initial debate simply do not know thatour water is fluoridated, much less why. Even some health professionals do not realize that we are afluoridated district. Most doctors and nurses I have spoken with havent thought about fluoridation in along time, and dont realize that many respected scientists and dentists, who once promoted thepractice, have changed their minds.
It has been almost fifty years since Camden, Rockland, and Thomaston approved fluoridation by a narrowmargin; having twice previously voted the measure down. Although the debate continues, one thing isvery clear to anyone who reviews the Camden Herald and Courier Gazette for the years of 1968 and 1969:The arguments used to promote it have changed vastly in the 44 years since the practice beganhere. I have included copies of health board statements and advertisements promoting fluoridation thatappeared in the Camden Herald and Courier Gazette in 1968 and 1969. At that time, doctors believed thatfluoride worked like an essential nutrient, that its benefit was primarily systemic, and that it wouldprevent all sorts of things, from tooth decay to bone fractures to arteriosclerosis. Today, even staunchadvocates of fluoridation recognize that most of those things turned out not to be true, and that fluorideworks much differently than we originally believed.
Fifty years ago, not a single fluoride toothpaste was available, and water fluoridation was considered theonly cost effective way of delivering fluoride to those who wanted it. We now have access to fluoride invirtually all toothpastes, and its widespread use as a pesticide (as sulfuryl fluoride and cryolite) leads tohigh levels of the chemical in unexpected places, such as non-organic grape juice. Since fluoride contentcan vary widely, and is not required to be labeled, it is next to impossible for people to figure out howmuch they and their children are getting. Few health professionals, including pediatricians and dentists,have been trained to assess all sources of fluoride in adults and childrens diets, such as tea, certain wheatproducts, and mechanically deboned chicken. The AAP supports labeling requirements for fluoridecontent in foods and beverages but since fluoride content can vary drastically, there has been littleheadway made in this area.
We now know that fluoride is not a nutrient and that its dental benefit is primarily topical. We also knowthat most countries, including 97% of Western Europe, have chosen not to fluoridate their water.Dentists often note the differences they see between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, yet data revealsthat many of these differences are socioeconomic. Tooth decay has rapidly decreased worldwide, influoridated and non-fluoridated countries alike, and World Health Organization data show no difference in
tooth decay levels between countries that practice fluoridation and countries that dont.Very few of us know that the fluoridating agent used here, like in most places, is not naturally occurringcalcium fluoride nor even pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, as most people expected it would be. Ihave verified with the Maine Water Company that the chemical used is hydrofluorosilicic acid, ahighly corrosive byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Our fluoride originates in phosphatefertilizer plants owned by Mosaic Fertilizer Company in Central Florida, and is shipped via railcar toBorden and Remington in Boston before being transported in a designated tanker truck to us, and is oftencontaminated with detectable amounts of arsenic, lead, and other contaminants. It requires its own specialroom at the water treatment facility because of its toxicity, and rapidly eats through metal and pavement.Because it is so acidic, fluoridated water requires treatment with additional amounts of caustic soda
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
3/37
(sodium hydroxide) to normalize the pH of the finished drinking water so thatit doesnt corrode our pipes and leach lead and copper. Still research indicatesa troubling link between fluoridation chemicals and elevated blood lead levelsin children.
Phosphate mining has disastrous implications for Floridians, and the overuseof phosphate fertilizer has serious implications for drinking watereverywhere. In Florida, phosphate strip mining has been linked to sinkholes,
as well as to the pollution of the Florida aquifer, the primary drinking watersource for many Floridians. To know that we are adding something to thewater that is part of a process that jeopardizes the drinking water of others isunsettling to me, not to mention the increase in our carbon footprint broughtabout by the transporting of the chemicals, and the risk that a spill wouldpose to our health and ecosystem.
I wont spell out all the possible areas of concern. As a health professional, youcan easily assess the information for yourself and I am including a copy of aScientific American article from 2007 which provides a nice overview of theevolution of this debate and the way that fluoride works, as well as a fewother abstracts and articles from my research that illustrate some of thethings I mentioned earlier. I plan to write a letter to the city councils of the fivetown water district, but wanted to also reach out to the dental and medical
community to get your thoughts on this important issue.
Thank you for taking the time to review this letter and some of the materialI've included. I have printed everything at my own expense and haveconducted all my research mainly while breastfeeding my now 9 month old son over thepast few months. I would be eager to speak with you or provide additionalcopies of any of this information. I can be reached by email or phone.
Sincerely,
Alison McKellar
(207) [email protected]
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
4/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
5/37
74 SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN January 2008
PUBLICHEALTH
Long before the passionate debates over cig-
arettes, DDT, asbestos or the ozone hole,
most Americans had heard of only one
environmental health controversy: fluoridation.
Starting in the 1950s, hundreds of communities
across the U.S. became embroiled in heated bat-
tles over whether fluoridesionic compounds
containing the element fluorineshould be
added to their water systems. On one side was
a broad coalition of scientists from government
and industry who argued that adding fluoride
to drinking water would protect teeth against
decay; on the other side were activists who con-
tended that the risks of fluoridation were inad-
equately studied and that the practice amount-
ed to compulsory medication and thus was a
violation of civil liberties.
The advocates of fluoride eventually carried
the day, in part by ridiculing opponents such as
the right-wing John Birch Society, which called
fluoridation a communist plot to poison Amer-
ica. Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. popu-
lation drinks fluoridated water, including resi-
dents of 46 of the nations 50 largest cities. Out-
side the U.S., fluoridation has spread to Canada,
the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and a few
other countries. Critics of the practice have gen-
erally been dismissed as gadflies or zealots by
mainstream researchers and public health agen-
cies in those countries as well as the U.S. (In
other nations, however, water fluoridation is
rare and controversial.) The U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention even lists water
fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest health
achievements of the 20th century, alongside
vaccines and family planning.
Now, though, scientific attitudes toward fluo-
ridation may be starting to shift in the country
where the practice began. After spending more
than two years reviewing and debating hun-
dreds of studies, a committee of the National
Research Council (NRC) released a report in
2006 that gave a tinge of legitimacy to some
longtime assertions made by antifluoridation
campaigners. The report concluded that the En-
vironmental Protection Agencys current limit
KEY CONCEPTS
I Researchers are intensify-ing their scrutiny of fluo-
ride, which is added to
most public water sys-
tems in the U.S. Some
recent studies suggest
that overconsumption of
fluoride can raise the risks
of disorders affecting
teeth, bones, the brain
and the thyroid gland.
I A 2006 report by a com-mittee of the National
Research Council recom-
mended that the federal
government lower its cur-
rent limit for fluoride in
drinking water because of
health risks to both chil-
dren and adults.
The Editors
New research indicates that a cavity-fightingtreatment could be risky if overused
By Dan Fagin
Second Thoughts about
AARONGOODMAN
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
6/37
www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN 75
for fluoride in drinking waterfour milligrams
per liter (mg/L)should be lowered because of
health risks to both children and adults. In chil-
dren, consistent exposure to fluoride at that lev-
el can discolor and disfigure emerging perma-
nent teetha condition called dental fluorosis.
In adults, the same fluoride level appears to in-
crease the risk of bone fracture and, possibly, of
moderate skeletal fluorosis, a painful stiffening
of the joints. Most fluoridated water contains
much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the sit-
uation is worrisome because there is so much
uncertainty over how much additional fluoride
we ingest from food, beverages and dental prod-
ucts. What is more, the NRC panel noted that
fluoride may also trigger more serious health
problems, including bone cancer and damage to
the brain and thyroid gland. Although these ef-
fects are still unproved, the panel argued that
they deserve further study.
The largest long-running investigation of the
effects of fluoride is the Iowa Fluoride Study, di-
pTOO MUCH OF A GOOD
THING: Fluoride is in manyfoods, beverages anddental products. Theubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical canresult in overconsump-tion, particularly amongyoung children.
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
7/37
76 SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN January 2008
rected by Steven M. Levy of the University of
Iowa College of Dentistry. For the past 16 years
Levys research team has closely tracked about
700 Iowa children to try to tease out subtle ef-
fects of fluoridation that may have been over-
looked by previous studies. At the same time,
Levy is also leading one of the most extensive
efforts ever to measure fluoride concentrations
in thousands of productsincluding foods,
drinks and toothpastesto develop credible es-
timates of typical fluoride intake.
It is a maddeningly complex area of research
because diets, toothbrushing habits and water
fluoridation levels vary so much and also be-
cause genetic, environmental and even cultural
factors appear to leave some people much more
susceptible to the effects of fluorideboth pos-
itive and negativethan others. Despite all the
uncertainties, however, Levy and some other
fluoride researchers have come around to the
view that some children, especially very young
ones, are probably getting more fluoride than
they should. Most of those scientists, including
Levy, still support water fluoridation as a proved
method of controlling tooth decay, especially in
populations where oral hygiene is poor. But the
researchers also believe that in communities
with good dental care the case for fluoridation
is not as strong as it used to be. Instead of just
pushing for more fluoride, we need to find the
right balance, Levy says.
The Advent of FluorideFramed toothpaste advertisements from more
than half a century ago hang on the walls of
Levys conference room. One touting Pebeco
Toothpaste reads: Do you want your teeth to
ache and get ugly? Another asserts that Col-
gate Chlorophyll Toothpaste Destroys Bad
Breath. They are artifacts of the prefluoride
era, when tooth decaycalled caries in the par-
lance of dentistrywas pervasive and tooth-
pastes were marketed with questionable medi-
cal claims.
The introduction of fluoride changed all that.
In 1945 Grand Rapids, Mich., became the first
city to fluoridate its water supply. Ten years lat-
er Procter & Gamble introduced Crest, the first
fluoridated toothpaste, which contained stan-
nous fluoride (a compound with one atom of tin
and two of f luorine). Colgate-Palmolive fol-
lowed in 1967 by modifying its Colgate brand
with what has become one of the dominant cav-
ity-fighting ingredients in toothpastes: sodium
monofluorophosphate. Instead of sticking with
the fluoride salts found in toothpastes and fa-
[TRENDS]
FLUORIDATION ACROSS AMERICAWater fluoridation has spread across the
U.S. since its introduction in 1945. In 2002,
the latest year for which data are available,
Americans receiving fluoridated water rep-
resented 67 percent of all people suppliedby public water systems and 59 percent of
the total population. Fluoridation is most
prevalent in the District of Columbia (100
percent) and Kentucky (99.6 percent) and
least common in Hawaii (8.6 percent) and
Utah (2.2 percent).
[THE AUTHOR]
Dan Faginis an associate profes-sor of journalism and director of
the Science, Health and Environ-
mental Reporting Program at New
York University. A former environ-
mental and science writer for
Newsday, his articles on cancer
epidemiology won the AAAS
Science Journalism Award in 2003.
Fagin is co-author of Toxic Decep-
tion (Common Courage Press,
1999) and is working on a book
about gene-environment interac-
tions and the childhood cancer
cluster in Toms River, N.J.
59%oftheU.S.populationreceivedfluoridatedwaterin2002
WA
OR
ID
MT
WY
NV
CA
UT
AZ
CO
NM
TXAK
OK
KS
NE
SD
ND
MN
M
NY
VTNH
MA
NJ
DEMD
CTRI
PA
WI
MI
ILIN
OH
WVVA
KY
TN
IA
MO
AR
LA
MS
FL
AL GA
SC
NC
HI
PERCENTAGE OF STATE POPULATIONS RECEIVING FLUORIDATED WATER, 2002
< 25% 25%49% 50%75% >75%
Total U.S. populationSupplied by public water systems*Receiving fluoridated water
FLUORIDATION RISING IN THE U.S.
300
200
100
01945 1965 1985 2002
Year
NumberofPe
ople(millions)
*Dat a on pub lic wat er s yst ems not ava ila ble bef ore 196 4
COURTESYOFANNAFAGIN(Fagin);LUCYREADING-IK
KANDA(mapandgraph);MOODBOARD/CORBIS(paperclip)
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
8/37
www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN 77
vored by dentists in office treatments, most wa-
ter suppliers eventually switched to the cheaper
option of fluoridating with silicofluorides such
as hexafluorosilicic acid, a by-product of a fer-
tilizer manufacturing process in which phos-
phate ores are treated with sulfuric acid.
By the 1970s and 1980s America was awashin various forms of fluoride, and fluoridation
had become the cornerstone of preventative
dentistry in most English-speaking countries.
Exactly why and how much caries incidence de-
creased during the same period is a matter of
fierce debate, but the consensus among dental
researchers is that the decline was steep and that
fluoride deserved much of the credit.
That was the culture in which Levy got his
start in public health dentistry in the mid-1980s.
Colgate-Palmolive funded his early research,
which had the effect of encouraging more fluo-
ride use in dental offices. But as American den-
tists began to see fewer cavities and more fluo-
rosis on the teeth of their young patients, Levy
started to wonder whether children were get-
ting too much of a good thing. There was a
transition in my own thinking from more fluo-
ride is definitely our goal to making sure we un-
derstand where the right balance is between
caries and fluorosis.
Fluorides role in causing one disease and de-
terring another is rooted in the fluorine ions pow-
erful attraction to calcium-bearing tissues in the
body. In fact, more than 99 percent of ingested
fluoride that is not quickly excreted ends up in
bones and teeth. Fluoride inhibits cavities through
two separate mechanisms. First, fluoride that
touches the enamelthe hard, white outer layer
of the teethbecomes embedded in the crystal-
line structures of hydroxylapatite, the main min-
eral component of teeth and bones. The fluorine
ions replace some of the hydroxyl groups in the
hydroxylapatite molecules of the enamel, and this
substitution makes teeth slightly more resistant
to the enamel-dissolving acid excreted by bacte-
ria in the mouth as they consume food remnants.
Second, the fluoride on the surface of teeth serves
as a catalyst that enhances the deposition of cal-
cium and phosphate, making it easier for the body
to continually rebuild the enamel crystals that the
bacteria are dissolving.
Fluoride has a very different effect, however,
when large doses are ingested by young children
whose permanent teeth are still developing and
have not yet erupted. The key proteins in early
tooth formation are called amelogenins, which
regulate the formation of hydroxylapatite crys-
Debating the EffectsThe U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has hailed fluoridation as one
of the 10 greatest public health achieve-
ments of the 20th century, claiming that
the addition of the chemical to drinking
water has been one of the main reasons
for the decline in tooth decay over thepast three decades (measured here by the
number of decayed, missing or filled
teeth in 12-year-olds). Rates of tooth
decay have also plunged, however, in
many countries where public water sys-
tems are not fluoridated. In some of
these nations, fluoride added to foods,
beverages and dental products may
account for part of the decline.
Fluorides role in combating tooth decay is rooted in the ions powerful
attraction to enamel, the hard, white outer layer of the teeth.
[FOCUS ON TEETH]
p With Fluoride
The topical application of fluoride to theteeth has two effects. First, the fluorideions replace some of the hydroxyl groups inthe hydroxylapatite molecules, creatingfluorapatite crystals that are slightly moreresistant to the enamel-dissolving acid ex-
creted by the bacteria. Second, the fluorideon the surface of teeth serves as a catalystthat enhances the deposition of calciumand phosphate, thus remineralizing dam-aged enamel and combating decay.
FIGHTING CAVITIES
p Without Fluoride
The primary mineral in enamel is hydroxylap-atite, a crystal composed of calcium, phos-phorus, hydrogen and oxygen. When foodremnants become lodged between teeth,bacteria consume the sugars and excrete lac-tic acid, which can lower the pH of the mouth
enough to dissolve the hydroxylapatite. Ifthe rate of dissolution is higher than the rateof remineralizationthe deposition of calci-um and phosphate ions from saliva onto theenamelthen cavities will form in the teeth.
Enamel
Gums
Acid excretedby bacteria
Bloodvessels
Fluoride ions
applied to teethCalcium ionsPhosphate ions
Fluoride ions
Foodremnant
Calcium andphosphate ions
Enhanceddeposition ofcalcium andphosphate
FluoridatedU.S.AustraliaNew Zealand
UnfluoridatedBelgiumFinlandItaly
TOOTH DECAY INDEX
(number of decayed, missingor filled teeth in 12-year-olds)
20051975
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Year1985 1995
ANDREWS
WIFT(teeth);LUCYREADING-IKKANDA(graph)
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
9/37
78 SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN January 2008
tals. As a crystal matrix forms, the amelogenins
break down and are removed from the matur-
ing enamel. But when some children consume
high doses of fluoride, which is absorbed
through the digestive tract and delivered by the
bloodstream to the developing teeth, the bio-
chemical signaling goes awry and the proteins
remain inside the budding tooth longer than
usual, thereby creating gaps in the crystalline
enamel structure. As a result, when a fluorosed
tooth finally erupts it is often unevenly colored,
with some portions whiter than othersa visu-
al effect caused by light refracting off the po-
rous enamel. In more severe cases, the surface
of the tooth is pitted and the stains are brown.
Nutrition and genetics can influence the risk of
fluorosis, but the most important factor by far
is the amount of fluoride ingested.
With grant money from the National Insti-
tute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Levy
set out to determine how much fluoride children
consume and how it affects their teeth and
bones. There is no universally accepted optimal
level for daily intake of fluoridethat is, a level
that maximizes protection against tooth decay
while minimizing other risksbut the range
most often cited by researchers is 0.05 to 0.07
milligram of fluoride per kilogram of body
weight per day. In the early 1990s, when the
children in Levys study were infants, he found
that more than a third of them were ingesting
enough fluoridemostly via water-based infant
formula, baby foods and juice drinksto put
them at a high risk of developing mild fluorosis
in their permanent teeth. That fraction dropped
only slightly as their diet changed during their
toddler yearsa critical period for enamel for-
mation in preemergent teeth. Typical fluoride
ingestion stayed high during the toddler years,
in part because toothpaste replaced formula as
a key source. Although both children and adults
are supposed to spit out their toothpaste after
brushing, Levy had found in an earlier study
that toddlers on average actually swallowed
more than half of their toothpaste.
By the time the Iowa children were nine
years old and their permanent front teeth had
emerged, it was obvious that the earlier expo-
sures to fluoride had literally left their mark.
The front teeth of children who had been in the
high-intake group as infants and toddlers were
more than twice as likely to show the telltale
staining of fluorosis than the teeth of children
who had ingested less fluoride when they were
younger. And as their diet broadened, so did
their sources of fluoride. Tests performed in
[AREA OF CONCERN]
p Normal Bone Formation
Scientists have focused on fluorides effects on bone because so much of the chemical is stored there.
Studies have shown that high doses of fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of bone-building osteo-
blast cells, raising fears that the chemical may induce malignant tumors. Fluoride also appears
to alter the crystalline structure of bone, possibly increasing the risk of fractures.
IS FLUORIDE WEAKENING BONE?
Compactbone
Spongybone
PeriosteumMarrow
Existing bone
Bloodvessels
Osteoblasts formingnew bone
Layer of newweak bone
p Effects of Excessive Fluoride
Scientificattitudes
towardfluoridation
may bestarting
to shift in
the countrywhere thepractice
began.
Proliferation ofosteoblasts
Fluorideions
ANDREWS
WIFT
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
10/37
www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN 79
Levys lab found, for example, that many kinds
of juice drinks and soda pop contain enough
fluoride (generally about 0.6 mg/L) so that
drinking a little more than a liter a day would
put a typical three-year-old at the optimal in-
take level, without counting any other daily
sources.Dozens of food items tested by Levys team
contained even higher concentrations of fluo-
ride: an average of 0.73 mg/L in cranberry-juice
cocktail, 0.71 mg/L in ice pops, 0.99 mg/L in
beef gravy and 2.10 mg/L in canned crabmeat,
for example. In most cases, the fluoride came
from water added during processing, although
higher levels also got into grapes and raisins via
pesticides, into processed chicken products via
ground-up bone, and into tea leaves via absorp-
tion from soil and water.
Levy found that exposure to fluoridated
drinking water was an even more important risk
factor for fluorosis. Iowa children who lived in
communities where the water was fluoridated
were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluoro-
sis on at least two of their eight permanent front
teeth at nine years of age than children living in
nonfluoridated areas of the state (there was a 33
percent prevalence in the former versus 22 per-
cent in the latter). Similar results appeared in
the NRC report, which found that infants and
toddlers in fluoridated communities ingest
about twice as much fluoride as they should.
Furthermore, the committee noted that adults
who drink above-average amounts of water, in-
cluding athletes and laborers, are also exceed-
ing the optimal level for fluoride intake.
But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest
cases, has no health impact beyond lowered
self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive
and do not go away (although there are mask-
ing treatments). The much more important
question is whether fluorides effects extend be-
yond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel
formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher
Pamela DenBesten of the University of Califor-
nia, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: We
certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way
proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so
what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular
level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to
be treated respectfully.
Fluoride and BoneBone is an obvious place to look for fluorides
fingerprints because so much fluoride is stored
there. What is more, studies of patients with
osteoporosisa bone disease that increases the
risk of fractureshave shown that high doses
of fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of
bone-building osteoblast cells, even in elderly
patients. The exact mechanism is still unknown,
but fluoride appears to achieve this by increas-
ing the concentrations of tyrosine-phosphory-lated proteins, which are involved in biochemi-
cal signaling to osteoblasts. As with tooth
enamel, however, fluoride not only stimulates
bone mineralization, it also appears to alter the
crystalline structure of boneand in this case,
the effects are not merely aesthetic. Although
fluoride may increase bone volume, the strength
of the bone apparently declines. Epidemiologi-
cal studies and tests on lab animals suggest that
high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone
fracture, especially in vulnerable populations
such as the elderly and diabetics. Although
those studies are sti ll somewhat controversial,
nine of the 12 members of the NRC panel con-
cluded that a lifetime of exposure to drinking
water fluoridated at 4 mg/L or higher does
indeed raise the risk of fracture. The committee
noted that lower fluoridation levels may also
increase the risk, but the evidence is murkier.
As the Iowa children in his study enter ado-
lescence, Levy hopes that analyses of the
strength of their spine, hips and overall skeleton
will point to possible connections between fluo-
ride intake and bone health. He presented some
preliminary data in 2007, finding little differ-
ence in the mineral content of the bones of 11-
year-olds based on how much fluoride they had
ingested as young children. As they go through
adolescence, however, Levy thinks that
trends may emerge.
The even bigger question looming over
the fluoride debate is whether these known
cellular effects in bones and teeth are clues
that fluoride is affecting other organs and
triggering other diseases besides fluorosis.
The biggest current debate is over osteosar-
comathe most common form of bone can-
cer and the sixth most prevalent cancer in
children. Because fluoride stimulates the pro-
duction of osteoblasts, several researchers
have suggested that it might induce malignant
tumors in the expanding cell population. A
1990 study conducted by the U.S. govern-
ments National Toxicology Program found
a positive dose-response relation for osteo-
sarcoma incidence in male rats exposed to
different amounts of fluoride in drinking wa-
ter (all those amounts, as is typical for ani-
SIGNS OF
FLUOROSIS
When young children consume
large amounts of fluoride, thechemical can disrupt the develop-
ment of their permanent teeth.When the teeth emerge, their
enamel may be discolored (top)or, in more severe cases, disfig-
ured (bottom ). Researchers havefound that this condition, called
dental fluorosis, is more commonin communities where the drink-
ing water is fluoridated.
STEVENM.
LEVYUniversityofIowa
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
11/37
80 SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN January 2008
mal studies, were far above the actual expo-
sures found in fluoridated communities). But
other animal studies as well as most epidemio-
logical studies in human populations have been
ambiguous at best.
The latest dustup over fluoride and osteosar-
coma was instigated by a young researchernamed Elise B. Bassin of the Harvard School of
Dental Medicine. Bassin collected information
about fluoride exposures among 103 osteosar-
coma patients and 215 matched control subjects
and concluded that fluoride is a risk factor for
the cancer among boys (the results were ambig-
uous for girls). Bassins report appeared in 2006
in the journal Cancer Causes and Control; in
the same issue, however, her dissertation advis-
er at Harvard, Chester Douglass, wrote a com-
mentary warning readers to be especially cau-
tious in interpreting her findings because, he
said, better data, still unpublished, contradict
them. Antifluoridationists and some envi-
ronmental groups quickly rushed to
Bassins defense, demanding that Har-
vard investigate Douglass, professor
and chair of epidemiology at the den-
tal school, for allegedly misrepresent-
ing Bassins work and for having a con-
flict of interest because he is editor in
chief of a newsletter for dentists funded by
Colgate. The universitys investigation of Doug-
lass, completed in 2006, concluded that there
was no misconduct or conflict of interest.
Clashes over the possible neurological effects
of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis
Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Bos-
ton, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s
when she reported that experiments on
lab rats showed that sodium fluoride
can accumulate in brain tissue and af-
fect animal behavior. Prenatal expo-
sures, she reported, correlated with hy-
peractivity in young rats, especially
males, whereas exposures after birth had
the opposite effect, turning female rats
into what Mullenix later described as
couch potatoes. Although her research
was eventually published in Neurotoxicology
and Teratology, it was attacked by other
scientists who said that her methodolo-
gy was flawed and that she had used un-
realistically high dosages. Since then,
however, a series of epidemiological
studies in China have associated high
fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and
research has also suggested a possible
mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluo-
ride complexessmall inorganic molecules that
mimic the structure of phosphates and thus in-
fluence enzyme activity in the brain. There is
also some evidence that the silicofluorides used
in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake
of lead into the brain.The endocrine system is yet another area
where some evidence exists that fluoride can
have an impact. The NRC committee conclud-
ed that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine func-
tion, especially in the thyroidthe gland that
produces hormones regulating growth and me-
tabolism. Although researchers do not know
how fluoride consumption can influence the
thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influ-
enced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull,
professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxi-
cology at the University of Kansas Medical Cen-
ter, who chaired the NRC committee: The thy-
roid changes do worry me. There are some
things there that need to be explored.
The Controversy ContinuesThe release of the NRC report has not triggered
a public stampede against fluoridation, nor has
it prompted the EPA to quickly lower its fluoride
limit of 4 mg/L (the agency says it is still study-
ing the issue). Water suppliers who add fluoride
typically keep levels between 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L,
far below the EPA limit. About 200,000 Ameri-
cansand several million people in China,
India, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast
Asiadrink concentrations higher than the lim-
it, but their excess fluoride comes from natural-
ly occurring runoff from fluoride-containing
rocks and soils near water sources.
The report is, however, prompting some re-
searchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too
much in drinking water, in light of the growing
recognition that food, beverages and dental
products are also major sources of fluoride, es-
pecially for young children. The NRC commit-
tee did not formally address the question, but
its analyses suggest that lower water fluorida-
tion levels may pose risks, too. What the com-
mittee found is that weve gone with the status
quo regarding fluoride for many yearsfor too
long, reallyand now we need to take a fresh
look, Doull says. In the scientific community,
people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when
the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this
is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the
20th century, thats a hard hurdle to get over.
But when we looked at the studies that have
A FLUORIDE DIET
The optimal range for daily intakeof fluoridethe level that maxi-
mizes protection against toothdecay but minimizes other risks
is generally considered to be 0.05to 0.07 milligram for each kilo-
gram of body weight. Consumingfoods and beverages with large
amounts of fluoride can put a dietabove this range. Below are typi-
cal trace levels of fluoride, mea-sured in parts per million (ppm),
found in foods and drinks testedat the University of Iowa College
of Dentistry.
3.73 ppm Brewed black tea2.34 ppm Raisins u2.02 ppm White wine1.09 ppm Apple-
flavoredjuice drink
0.91 ppm Brewedcoffee
0.71 ppmTap water(U.S.-wideaverage)
0.61 ppm Chicken soupbroth0.60 ppm Diet Coke
(U.S.-wideaverage)
0.48 ppm Hot dog0.46 ppm Grapefruit
juice
0.45 ppm Beer u0.45 ppm Baked russet
potatoes
0.35 ppm Cheddar cheese0.33 ppm Flour
tortillas
0.32 ppm Creamed corn(baby food)
0.23 ppm Chocolateice cream u
0.13 ppm Brewedchamomile tea
0.03 ppm Milk (2%) DAVIDROSENBERGGettyImages(hotdog);IMAGESO
URCEPINK/GETTYIMAGES(raisins);JONATHANKITCHENGettyImages
(beer);CSQUAREDSTUDIOS/GETTYIMAGES(icecream)
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
12/37
www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIF IC AMERICAN 81
been done, we found that many of these ques-
tions are unset tled and we have much less infor-
mation than we should, considering how long
this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think
thats why fluoridation is still being challenged
so many years after it began. In the face of igno-
rance, controversy is rampant.
Some longtime fluoride researchers, however,
remain unimpressed by the evidence of effects
beyond teeth and bones, and they continue to
push for an expansion of water fluoridation in
the U.S. and elsewhere. Their view remains the
official position of the American Dental Asso-
ciation and the U.S. Public Health Service. We
feel there are enough communities out there
with high caries rates to justify additional fluo-
ridation, says Jayanth V. Kumar, director of
oral health surveillance and research at the New
York State Department of Health and a member
of the NRC panel who dissented from some of
its findings. He acknowledges, however, that
the argument for water fluoridation is not as
strong in affluent areas with good nutrition and
dental care. Today it depends on what the car-
ies level is in the community. If the disease is
low, the return on investment [for fluoridation]
may not be all that great.
Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have
been emboldened by the NRC report. What
the committee did was very, very important, be-
cause its the first time a truly balanced panel
has looked at this and raised important ques-
tions, says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor
at St. Lawrence University and the executive di-
rector of the Fluoride Action Network, one of
the most active antifluoridation groups world-
wide. I absolutely believe its a scientific turn-
ing point because now everythings on the table.
Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S.,
and its time we talked about it. g
The risks of fluoride were known long before its benefits. Starting in the first decade of the 20th century, adentist named Frederick McKay traveled the American West investigating reports of what was then knownas Colorado Brown Stain. With a collaborator, G. V. Black, dean of the Northwestern University Dental School,
McKay discovered that children born in Colorado Springs, Colo., had stained teeth, but adults who movedthere did not. They hypothesized that young children whose permanent teeth had not yet erupted or developed
enamel faced the highest risk of developing the stain. McKay, who guessed that the stain was caused by some
unknown compound in the local drinking water, also noticed a curious fact: the mottled teeth were surprisingly
resistant to decay.
The cause remained a mystery until 1930, when McKay went to Arkansas to investigate reports of tooth
staining in Bauxite, a company town owned by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). Worried that alu-
minum might be blamed, Alcoas chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, tested the local water and discovered some-
thing McKay had never suspected: high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. McKay quickly tested other sus-
pect water supplies and found that wherever fluoride levels were hightypically 2.5 milligrams per liter or
higherColorado Brown Stain was prevalent. A new disease entered the
lexicon: fluorosis.
Spurred by Churchills and McKays discoveries, a researcher named
Henry Trendley Dean, head of the dental hygiene unit at the National
Institute of Health (which later changed its name to the National Insti-
tutes of Health) , tried to determine how much fluoride was enough to
trigger fluorosis. By the late 1930s he had concluded that levels below
1 mg/L would pose little risk. Dean remembered that McKay had
found that fluorosed teeth were resistant to decay, and so he began
pushing for a citywide test of a revolutionary idea: deliberately add-
ing fluoride to water at levels that would deter cavities without trig-
gering fluorosis. He got his wish in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Mich.,
and Dean went on to become fluoridations leading advocate as the
first director of the newly formed National Institute of Dental Re-
search from 1948 until his retirement in 1953. D.F.
tCOLORADO DENTIST Frederick McKay,
whose investigations led to the discoveryof fluorides effects on teeth.
[BACKGROUND]
FLUORIDE HISTORY
MORE TOEXPLORE
Patterns of Fluoride Intake fromBirth to 36 Months. Steven M.Levy, John J. Warren, Charles S.
Davis, H. Lester Kirchner, Michael J.Kanellis and James S. Wefel inJour-nal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 61,No. 2, pages 7077; June 2001.
Patterns of Fluoride Intake from36 to 72 Months of Age. Steven M.Levy, John J. Warren and BarbaraBroffitt inJournal of Public HealthDentistry, Vol. 63, No. 4, pages 211220; December 2003.
Timing of Fluoride Intake in Rela-
tion to Development of Fluorosison Maxillary Central Incisors.
Liang Hong, Steven M. Levy,Barbara Broffitt, John J. Warren,Michael J. Kanellis, James S. Wefeland Deborah V. Dawson in Commu-nity Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology,Vol. 34, No. 4, pages 299309 ;August 2006.
Age-Specific Fluoride Exposure in
Drinking Water and Osteosarco-ma. Elise B. Bassin, David Wypij,Roger B. Davis and Murray A.Mittleman in Cancer Causes and Con-trol, Vol. 17, No. 4, pages 421428;May 2006.
Caution Needed in Fluoride andOsteosarcoma Study. Chester W.Douglass and Kaumudi Joshipura inCancer Causes and Control, Vol. 17,No. 4, pages 481482; May 2006.
Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPAs
Standards. National Academyof Sciences, 2006. Available atwww.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571BE
TTMANN/CORBIS
2007 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
13/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
14/37
STATEMENT BY DR. HARDY LIMEBACK
by Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
I am the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto in Toronto Canada , a
professor with a PhD in Biochemistry and a practicing dentist who has done years of funded
research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride. I was one of the 12 scientists who served on the
National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A
Scientific Review of the EPAs Standards.
I would like to outline my arguments that fluoridation is an ineffective and harmful public health
policy.
1. Fluoridation is no longer effective .
Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental
decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are
over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use offluoridated toothpaste .
There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental
decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia
(Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water
fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by
fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al
2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).
Public health services will claim there is still a dental decay crisis. With the national average inEurope of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more
than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all
children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in most
European countries without fluoridation. The crisis of dental decay often mentioned is the
result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their
daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated,
the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.
The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they
getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot
afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in moredental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.
Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with
water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because
they lose money treating these patients. I would think the same is true for dentists in Europe .
Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
15/37
assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has
been in effect for years are reporting similar dental crises.
Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating
that ingesting fluoride makes the teeth stronger. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does notmake developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral
environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of
fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of topical exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from
acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community
Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for
Disease Control.
2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis .
Fluoride doses by the end user cant be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1
parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride
when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of HumanLactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in
fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). The American Dental Association and
the Dental Forum in Ireland has admitted that fluoridated tap water should not be used to
reconstitute infant formula.
We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has
lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic
effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on
children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek
extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced byturning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of
Dental Research 79(2):761-9).
3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety .
All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more
than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some
communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same
fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6
is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate
fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is
industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic
and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the
drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium
fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000,
Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
16/37
This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental
Health Perspectives 114:130-134).
4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation .
Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a
recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this
study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and
contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the over 500% increase risk of bone
cancer.
Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per
million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the
same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per
million, or in people with renal disease. Additionally, Brits are known for their tea drinking and
since tea itself contains fluoride, using fluoridated tap water puts many heavy tea drinkersdangerously close to threshold for bone fracture. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown
that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too
much fluoride.
Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological
Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that
fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the
basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride
intake.
Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known
neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We areonly now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. Several recent studies suggest that
fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth.
In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now
overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing
new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
17/37
Fluoridation: Time to reevaluate 19 October 2007
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
18/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
19/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
20/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
21/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
22/37
Vol. 60,No. 3, Summer 2000 131R E V I E W & C O M M E N T A R Y
Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis:Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to InfantsSamuel J. Fomon, MD; Jan Ekstrand, DDS, PhD; Ekhard E. Ziegler, MDAbstract
Background: Although the predominant beneficial effect of fluoride occurslocally in the mouth, the adverse effect, dental fluorosis, occurs by the systemicroute. The caries attack rate n industrializedcountries, ncluding the Unitedstatesand Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years. However, theprevalence of dental fluorosis in the United States has increased during the last30 years both in communities with fluoridated water and in communities withnonfluoridated water. Dental fluorosis is closely associated with fluoride intakeduring the period of tooth development. Methods: We reviewed the majorchanges in infant feeding practices that have occurred since 1930 and thechanges in fluoride ntakes by infants and young children associated with changesin feeding practices. Results and Conclusions: Based on this review, weconclude that fluoride intakes of infants and children have shown a rather steadyincrease since 1930, are likely to continue to ncrease, and will be associated withfurther increase in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis unless intervention meas-ures are nstituted.Recommendations:We believe the most important measuresthat should be undertaken are ( I ) use, when feasible, of water low in fluoride fordilution of infant formulas; (2) adult supervision of toothbrushing by childrenyounger than 5 years of age; and (3) changes in recommendations for admini-stration of fluoride supplementsso that such supplements are not given to infantsand more stringent criteria are applied for administration to children.Key Words: dental fluorosis, fluoride supplements, fluoridated dentifrices, ormulafluoride.[J Public Health Dent 2000;60(3): 131-91
Current evidence suggests that thepredominant beneficial effectsof fluo-ride occur locally at the tooth surface,and that systemic (preeruptive)effectsare of much less importance (1-5).Be-cause fluoride intake at intervalsthroughout the day is an importantfactor in limiting the prevalence andseverity of dental caries in eruptedteeth, fluorida tion of communitydrinking water has been and contin-ues to be a useful public health meas-ure. In addition, the widespread use offluoridated dentifrices has providedeffective topical application of fluorideto erupted teeth.Although the predominant benefi-cial effect of fluoride occurs locally inthe mouth, the adverse effect, dental
fluorosis, occurs by the systemic route.From the beginning of tooth formationuntil tooth eruption, fluoride appearsable to exert an adverse effect on den-tal enamel at a number of develop-mental stages (6,7).Of the severalmechanisms proposed for the adverseeffect on tooth development, the mostlikely is that fluoride has an effect oncell function, either through interac-tions with the developing ameloblastsor the intracellular matrix (8). Dentalfluorosis is characterized by an in-creasing porosity (hypomineraliza-tion) of the subsurface enamel, caus-ing the enamel to appear opaque. Theclinical features include changes rang-ing from barely discernible fine whitelines running across the teeth to en-
tirely chalky white teeth (8). In ad-vanced stages, the enamel may be-come so porous that the outer layersbreak down and the exposed poroussubsurface becomes discolored.The caries attack rate in industrial-ized countries, including the UnitedStates and Canada, has decreased dra-matically over the past 40 years (9).Onthe other hand, based on changes inthe earlier community fluorosis indexand in the more recent index of Thyl-strup and Fejerskov (lo), the preva-lence of dental fluorosis in the UnitedStates has increased during the last 30years, both in communities withfluoridated water and in communitieswith nonfluoridated water (1,11-18).Because dental fluorosis is closelyassociated with fluoride intake duringthe period of tooth development (19),we reasoned that a review of trends influoride intake over the past 70yearswould be useful in predicting futuretrends in dental fluorosis. Thus, thepurpose of th is communication is toreview trends since 1930 in fluorideintakes by infants and young children.We shall put particular emphasis onreview of data on fluoride intake byinfants because major changes in in-fant feeding practices over the past 70years have been associated with age-related changes in fluoride intake, andwe believe that these changes have notbeen generally recognized.General Considerations
Because the beneficial action of fluo-ride in caries prevention is a local ef-fect within the mouth, the exposure tofluoride throughout the life span is amajor factor in prevention of dentalcaries, and, i f a choice is to be madebetween decreasing incidence of den-tal caries and increasing incidence of
Send correspondence and reprint requests toDr.Fomon, Departmentof Pediatrics, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive,Iowa City, IA 52242-1083.E-mail: [email protected]. kstrand is affiliated with the Department of Basic Oral Sciences, School of Dentisw,Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden. Dr. Ziegleriswith the Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa. The presentation is an updated andexpanded version of a paper presented at the Dietary Fluoride Supplement Workshop, Chicago, IL,Jan 31-Feb 1,1994. Manuscript received:9/14/99; returned to authors for revision: 4/19/00; accepted forpublication:6/5/00.
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
23/37
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
24/37
Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical
sodium fluoride as fluoridating agentsA costbenefit
analysis
J. William Hirzy a,*, Robert J. Cartonb, Christina D. Bonanni a, Carly M. Montaneroa,Michael F. Nagle a
aAmerican University, Department of Chemistry, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC,. USAb4 Glenwood Terrace, Averill Park, NY, USA
e nv i ro n me nt a l s ci e nc e & p ol i cy x x x ( 2 01 3 ) x x x x xx
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 March 2012
Received in revised form
14 January 2013
Accepted 15 January 2013
Keywords:
Fluoride
Arsenic
CancerFluoridation
Costbenefit analysis
a b s t r a c t
Water fluoridation programs in theUnitedStates andother countries which have them use
either sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that acid
(NaSF), all technical grade chemicals to adjust the fluoride level in drinking water to about
0.71 mg/L. In this paperwe estimate the comparative overall cost for U.S. society between
using cheaper industrial grade HFSA as the principal fluoridating agent versus using more
costly pharmaceutical grade (U.S. Pharmacopeia USP) NaF. USP NaF is used in toothpaste.
HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been
shown to leach lead (Pb)fromwater delivery plumbing, whileNaF has beenshown not to do
so. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) health-based drinking water stan-
dards for As and Pb are zero. Our focus was on comparing the social costs associatedwith
the difference innumbers of cancercasesarising fromAsduringuse ofHFSA asfluoridating
agent versus substitution of USP grade NaF. We calculated the amount of As delivered tofluoridatedwatersystemsusingeachagent,andused EPAUnitRisk valuesforAs toestimate
the number of lung and bladder cancer cases associated with each. Weused cost of cancer
cases published by EPA to estimate cost of treating lung and bladder cancer cases. Com-
mercial prices ofHFSAandUSP NaF were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate.
We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP NaF as
fluoridatingagent. TheU.S. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP
NaF inplaceofHFSAwhile simultaneously mitigating thepain andsufferingof citizens that
result fromuse of the technical grade fluoridating agents. Other countries, such as Ireland,
NewZealand, CanadaandAustraliathat usetechnicalgradefluoridatingagentsmay realize
similar benefits by making this change. Policy makers would have to confront the uneven
distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were made.
# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Correspondingauthor at: Department of Chemistry, American University, 4400Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20016, USA.Tel.: +1 202 885 1780; fax: +001 202 8851752.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J.W. Hirzy).
ENVSCI-1173; No. of Pages 6
Please cite this article in press as: Hirzy, J.W., et al., Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating
agentsA costbenefit analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.007
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
1462-9011/$ see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.007
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
25/37
1362 VOLUME 120 |NUMBER 10 | October 2012 t Environmental Health Perspectives
Review
A recent report from the National ResearchCouncil (NRC 2006) concluded that adverse
effects of high fluoride concentrations indrinking water may be of concern and thatadditional research is warranted. Fluoride maycause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals,including effects on learning and memory(Chioca et al. 2008; Mullenix et al. 1995). Arecent experimental study where the rat hip-pocampal neurons were incubated with vari-ous concentrations (20 mg/L, 40 mg/L, and80 mg/L) of sodium fluoride in vitro showedthat fluoride neurotoxicity may target hip-pocampal neurons (Zhang M et al. 2008).Although acute fluoride poisoning may beneurotoxic to adults, most of the epidemio-logical information available on associationswith childrens neurodevelopment is fromChina, where fluoride generally occurs indrinking water as a natural contaminant, andthe concentration depends on local geologi-cal conditions. In many rural communitiesin China, populations with high exposure tofluoride in local drinking-water sources mayreside in close proximity to populations with-out high exposure (NRC 2006).
Opportunities for epidemiological stud-ies depend on the existence of comparablepopulation groups exposed to different levels
of fluoride from drinking water. Such cir-cumstances are difficult to find in many
industrialized countries, because fluoride con-centrations in community water are usuallyno higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluorideis added to water supplies as a public healthmeasure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epi-demiological studies of developmental fluo-ride neurotoxicity were conducted in Chinabecause of the high fluoride concentrationsthat are substantially above 1 mg/L in wellwater in many rural communities, althoughmicrobiologically safe water has been acces-sible to many rural households as a result ofthe recent 5-year plan (20012005) by theChinese government. It is projected that allrural residents will have access to safe publicdrinking water by 2020 (World Bank 2006).However, results of the published studies havenot been widely disseminated. Four studiespublished in English (Li XS et al. 1995; Luet al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003; Zhao et al.1996) were cited in a recent report from theNRC (2006), whereas the World HealthOrganization (2002) has considered only two(Li XS et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996) in itsmost recent monograph on fluoride.
Fluoride readily crosses the placenta(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry 2003). Fluoride exposure to the devel-oping brain, which is much more susceptibleto injury caused by toxicants than is the maturebrain, may possibly lead to permanent damage(Grandjean and Landrigan 2006). In responseto the recommendation of the NRC (2006),the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA recentlyannounced that DHHS is proposing to changethe recommended level of fluoride in drinkingwater to 0.7 mg/L from the currently recom-mended range of 0.71.2 mg/L, and the U.S.EPA is reviewing the maximum amount offluoride allowed in drinking water, which cur-rently is set at 4.0 mg/L (U.S. EPA 2011).
To summarize the available literature,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increasedfluoride exposure in drinking water associatedwith neurodevelopmental delays. We specifi-cally targeted studies carried out in ruralChina that have not been widely disseminated,thus complementing the studies that havebeen included in previous reviews and riskassessment reports.
Methods
Search strategy. We sea rched MEDLINE(National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD,USA; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed),
Embase (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, theNetherlands; http://www.embase.com), WaterResources Abstracts (Proquest, Ann Arbor,MI, USA; http://www.csa.com/factsheets/water-resources-set-c .php), and TOXNET(Toxicology Data Network; National Libraryof Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA; http://tox-net.nlm.nih.gov) databases to identify studiesof drinking-water fluoride and neurodevel-opmental outcomes in children. In addition,we searched the China National KnowledgeInfrastructure (CNKI; Beijing, China; http://www.cnki .net) database to identi fy stud-ies published in Chinese journals only. Key
Address correspondence to A.L. Choi, Department
of Environmental Health, Harvard School of PublicHealth, Landmark Center 3E, 401 Park Dr., Boston,MA 02215 USA. Telephone: (617) 384-8646. Fax:(617) 384-8994. E-mail: [email protected]
Supplemental Material is available online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912).We thank V. Malik, Harvard School of Public Health,
for the helpful advice on the meta-analysis methods.is study was supported by internal institutional
funds.e authors declare they have no actual or potential
competing financial interests.Received 30 December 2011; accepted 20 July 2012.
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Anna L. Choi,1 Guifan Sun,2Ying Zhang,3and Philippe Grandjean1,4
1Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 2School of Public Health, ChinaMedical University, Shenyang, China; 3School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China; 4Institute of Public Health,University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
BACKGROUND: Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoridepoisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on childrens neuro-development.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to investigatethe effects of increased fluoride exposure and delayed neurobehavioral development.
METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNETdatabases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National KnowledgeInfrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been pub-lished in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with highand reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with meansand variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the stan-dardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conductedsensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-
water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between stud-ies, Beggs funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to
explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.RESULTS:e standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and referencepopulations was 0.45 (95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.35) using a random-effects model.us, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although thesubstantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.
CONCLUSIONS:e results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure onchildrens neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level informationon prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
KEYWORDS: fluoride, intelligence, neurotoxicity. Environ Health Perspect120:13621368(2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912[Online 20 July 2012]
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
26/37
Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead andother disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and
fluoridation chemicals
Myron J. Coplan a,*, Steven C. Patch b, Roger D. Masters c, Marcia S. Bachman a
aIntellequity Technology Services Natick, Massachusetts, United Statesb Environmental Quality Institute, University of North Carolina in Asheville, United States
cDartmouth College Institute for Nuroscience and Society, United States
Received 23 February 2006; accepted 12 February 2007
Available online 1 March 2007
Abstract
Silicofluorides (SiFs), fluosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluosilicate (NaFSA), are used to fluoridate over 90% of US fluoridated municipal
water supplies. Living in communities with silicofluoride treated water (SiFW) is associated with two neurotoxic effects: (1) Prevalence of children
with elevated blood lead (PbB > 10 mg/dL) is about double that in non-fluoridated communities (Risk Ratio 2, x2 p < 0.01). SiFW is associated
with serious corrosion of lead-bearing brass plumbing, producing elevated water lead (PbW) at the faucet. New data refute the long-prevailing
belief that PbW contributes little to childrens blood lead (PbB), it is likely to contribute 50% or more. (2) SiFW has been shown to interfere with
cholinergic function. Unlike the fully ionized state of fluoride (F-) in water treated with sodium fluoride (NaFW), the SiF anion, [SiF6]2- in SiFW
releases F- in a complicated dissociation process. Small amounts of incompletely dissociated [SiF6]2- or low molecular weight (LMW) silicic acid
(SA) oligomers may remain in SiFW. A German PhD study found that SiFW is a more powerful inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) than
NaFW. It is proposed here that SiFW induces protein mis-folding via a mechanism that would affect polypeptides in general, and explain dental
fluorosis, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely cosmetic but a canary in the mine foretelling other adverse, albeit subtle, health and
behavioral effects. Efforts to refute evidenceof such effectsare analyzed and rebutted. In 1999 and 2000, seniorEPA personnel admitted they knew
of no health effects studies of SiFs. In 2002 SiFs were nominated for NTP animal testing. In 2006 an NRC Fluoride Study Committee
recommended such studies. It is not known at this writing whether any had begun.
# 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Elevated blood lead; Silicofluoride; Fluosilicate; Brass corrosion; Enzyme inhibition; Fluorosis
1. Introduction
Chronic ingestion of water bearing 1 ppm of fluoride ion
(F) from NaF was thought harmless to humans when
municipal water fluoridation began in 1945. NaFSA was
substituted in 1947 and endorsed in 1950 by the US Public
Health Service without prior animal testing because rats grew
just as fast, their teeth got as much F as from NaF, and a
community could save 4 cents per year per resident (McClure,
1950).
FSA (H2SiF6) and NaFSA, its sodium salt (Na2SiF6), share
the [SiF6]2 anion, a fluoride complex herein called silico-
fluoride (SiF) which dissociates in water, releasing F. The
dissociation was predicted to be virtually complete at 1 ppm
of F so that SiFW would be just like NaF treated water
(NaFW). Today, 92% of US fluoridated drinking water is SiFW
(CDC, 1993). Senior EPA personnel have found no evidence
SiFW was ever tested for adverse health effects (Fox, 1999;
Thurnau, 2000). In 2002, SiFs were nominated for animal
tests (NTP, 2002) that had not begun as of July 2006.
The NRC report, Fluoride in Drinking Water. . .A
Scientific Review of EPAs Standards (NRC, 2006) empha-
sizes the importance of such testing with questions about
NeuroToxicology 28 (2007) 10321042
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 508 653 6147; fax: +1 508 655 3677.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.J. Coplan),
[email protected] (S.C. Patch), [email protected]
(R.D. Masters), [email protected] (M.S. Bachman).
0161-813X/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2007.02.012
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
27/37
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000; 28: 3829 Copyright C Munksgaard 2000Printed in Denmark . All rights reserved
ISSN 0301-5661
W. Knzel1, T. Fischer1, R. Lorenz2 and
S. Brhmann2
Decline of caries prevalence after 1Dental School of Erfurt, Department ofPreventive Dentistry, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, 2Public Health Services ofthe cessation ofwater fluoridation Spremberg and Zittau, Germany
in the former East GermanyKnzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Brhmann S: Decline of caries prevalence afterthe cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community DentOral Epidemiol 2000; 28: 3829. C Munksgaard, 2000
Abstract In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following thecessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt)
and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corre-sponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-widephenomenon. Additional surveys (N1017) carried out in the formerly-fluori-dated towns of Spremberg (N9042) and Zittau (N6232) were carried out inorder to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from thesetowns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly overthe last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While thedata provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction
brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48 % on average), it hasalso provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may contin-ue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply fromabout 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both townssignificantly decreased during the years 199396, following the cessation of waterfluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5 %) and in Zittau from2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously ob- Key words: caries prevalence; cessation;
children; East Germany; water fluoridationserved change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFTfor the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest ob- Walter Knzel, Dental School of Erfurt and
WHO Collaborating Centre for theserved in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed cariesPrevention of Oral Diseases, Nordhuser Str.trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral78, D 99089 Erfurt, Germany
health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availabilty and application Tel: 49 361 741 1209of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, how- Fax: 49 361 741 1109
e-mail: Simionoff/zmkh.ef.uni-jena.deever, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis offuture caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to Submitted 5 January 1999; accepted
be necessary. 7 February 2000
Long-lasting discontinuities or a final cessation of
water fluoridation have, hitherto, usually resultedin a caries increase in the juvenile population (1, 2,
3). In contrast to this repeated finding (4, 5, 6), it
emerged that in Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-
Stadt), caries prevalence actually continued todecrease (7), the DMFT-index falling significantly
between 1991 and 1995, from 2.5 to 1.9. A similar
statistical trend was observed in the F-poor controltown Plauen, where water fluoridation had ceased
382
in 198485 due to a necessary reconstruction of the
water supply system. By 1995, the relatively highDMFT of 3.5 for 12-year-olds seen in 1983 had de-
creased to 2.0.
This unexpected trend, shown for the first time
after cessation of water fluoridation (CWF), oc-curred at a time when there was a population-wide
decline in dental caries. This caries decline, which
became evident in the highly industrialised coun-tries of the western hemisphere at the end of the
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health Professsionals on Fluoride (Version 2)
28/37
7/16/13 4:10 PMCaries prevalence after cessation of wate... [Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI
Page 1 of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780
Caries Res. 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5.
Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.
Knzel W, Fischer T.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Dental School of Erfurt, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany.
Abstract
In the past, caries has usually increased after cessation of water fluoridation. More recently an
opposite trend could be observed: DMFT remaining stable or even decreasing further. The aim of the
present study conducted in La Salud (Province of Habana) in March 1997 was to analyse the current
caries trend under the special climatic and nutritional conditions of the subtropical sugar island Cuba,following the cessation, in 1990, of water fluoridation (0.8 ppm F). Diagnostic evaluations were carried
out using the same methods as in 1973 and 1982. Boys and girls aged 6-13 years (N = 414), lifelong
residents in La Salud, were examined. Between 1973 and 1982 the mean DMFT had decreased by
71.4%, the mean DMFS by 73. 3% and the percentage of caries-free children had increased from 26.
3 to 61.6%. In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected
rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds
and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds (from 1. 1 to 0.8) and DMFS (from 1.5 to 1.2). In
the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease (DMFT from 2.1 to 1.1; DMFS from 3.1 to 1. 5),
while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3
(1982) up to 55.2%. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding and for the good oral health
status of the children in La Salud is the effect of the school mouthrinsing programme, which has
involved fortnightly mouthrinses with 0.2% NaF solutions (i.e. 15 times/year) since 1990.
PMID: 10601780 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Display Settings: Abstract
Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances
LinkOut - more resources
PubMed
7/27/2019 testLetter to Health P