Water Fluoridation, Tooth Decay, & Poverty
- First and foremost, most of the oral health crises occurring in the United States right now are taking place in low-income urban areas that have been fluoridated for decades. It is unclear, therefore, how fluoridation can be expected to prevent oral health crises in newly fluoridated areas when it has failed to prevent such crises in areas that have been fluoridated for 30 to 60 years.
- Second, published studies have repeatedly found that fluoridation does not prevent the type of tooth decay (“baby bottle tooth decay”) that is the hallmark of the current oral health crises.
- Third, despite claims by some fluoridation advocates that water fluoridation can reduce social inequalities in oral health status, the research on this has been found severely lacking in quality and reliability.
1. Oral Health Crises in Fluoridated Cities:
San Antonio – Fluoridated since early 2000′s
“After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride,
research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar
County’s children it has only increased—up 13 percent this year. One out
of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities
had some last year.”
SOURCE: KENS 5. (2011). Added to our drinking water: A chemical more toxic than lead? November 11, 2002. (See article).
SOURCE: KENS 5. (2011). Added to our drinking water: A chemical more toxic than lead? November 11, 2002. (See article).
Cincinnati, Ohio (Fluoridated since 1979):
“City and regional medical officials say tooth decay is the city’s No. 1 unmet health-care need. ‘We cannot meet the demand,’ says Dr. Larry Hill, Cincinnati Health Department dental director. ‘It’s
absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community
with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem
problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send
them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem
has become.’”
SOURCE: Solvig E. (2002). Cincinnati’s dental crisis. The Cincinnati Enquirer October 6. (See article)
SOURCE: Solvig E. (2002). Cincinnati’s dental crisis. The Cincinnati Enquirer October 6. (See article)
“It’s overwhelming,” said Deb Bergschneider, dental
clinic coordinator at the Concord center. “Because we serve the
uninsured, we see the lower level of the community and the need is just
astronomical. … By the time they get to us, their mouths are bombed out.
They are all emergency situations. It’s a severe, severe, problem. It’s
sad.”
SOURCE: Gerth U. (2005). Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat, May 22. (See article)
Boston - Fluoridated since 1978:SOURCE: Gerth U. (2005). Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat, May 22. (See article)
“With a study estimating that the number of untreated
cavities among Boston students greatly exceeds the national average,
public health officials are about to launch an offensive against what
they say is a growing dental crisis in the city… According
to statistics cited in the city’s latest annual health report, ”The
Health of Boston 1999”: Eighteen percent of children 4 years old and
younger who were seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University
School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby-bottle tooth decay, a painful
condition that arises when a baby is given a bottle of juice or milk at
bedtime. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. About 90 percent
of 107 Boston high school students were found to need dental treatment,
according to a 1996 unpublished study. That report also estimated that
the city’s students had four times more untreated cavities than the
national average…”
SOURCE: Kong D. (1999). City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’. Boston Globe November 27.
Connecticut - Statewide mandatory fluoridation since 1960s:SOURCE: Kong D. (1999). City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’. Boston Globe November 27.
“Dental decay remains the most common chronic disease
among Connecticut’s children. Poor oral health causes Connecticut
children to lose hundreds of thousands of school days each year. One in
four Connecticut children is on Medicaid, but two of three Connecticut
children receive no dental care. And DSS continues to exploit the
seriously stretched public health providers and the few remaining
private providers.There is an oral health crisis in Connecticut.”
SOURCE: Slate R. (2005). State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor. New Haven Register May 5. (See article)
South Bronx, NY - Fluoridated since 1965:SOURCE: Slate R. (2005). State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor. New Haven Register May 5. (See article)
“Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are
routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South
Bronx. Children get used to feeling constant pain. They go to sleep with
it. They go to school with it. Sometimes their teachers are alarmed and
try to get them to a clinic. But it’s all so slow and heavily
encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or canceled
welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live
for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual
attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have
seen children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken
sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth.
But, to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has
been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as
part of the routine of life. Many teachers in the urban schools have
seen this. It is almost commonplace.”
SOURCE: Kozol J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. Harper Perennial.
Pittsburgh, PA - Fluoridated since 1953:SOURCE: Kozol J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. Harper Perennial.
“Nearly half of children in Pittsburgh between 6 and 8
have had cavities, according to a 2002 state Department of Health
report. More than 70 percent of 15-year-olds in the city have had
cavities, the highest percentage in the state. Close to 30 percent of
the city’s children have untreated cavities. That’s more than double the
state average of 14 percent.”
SOURCE: Law V. (2005). Sink your teeth into health care. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review February 13.
San Antonio, TX – Fluoridated since 2003:SOURCE: Law V. (2005). Sink your teeth into health care. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review February 13.
“After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride,
research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar
County’s children it has only increased—up 13 percent this year. One out
of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities
had some last year.”
SOURCE: Conger J. (2011). San Antonio: Added to our drinking water: a chemical ‘more toxic than lead?’ KENS 5 News. (see article)
Washington DC - Fluoridated since 1952:SOURCE: Conger J. (2011). San Antonio: Added to our drinking water: a chemical ‘more toxic than lead?’ KENS 5 News. (see article)
Washington DC has “one of the highest decay rates in children in the country.” The
“typical new patient, age 6, has five or six teeth with cavities — a
‘staggering” number’” at the Children’s National Medical Center.
SOURCE: Morse S. (2002). Bottled Water: Just add Fluoride. Washington Post March 5. (See article)
SOURCE: Morse S. (2002). Bottled Water: Just add Fluoride. Washington Post March 5. (See article)
2. FLUORIDATION & BABY BOTTLE TOOTH DECAY:
“Water fluoridation status of the children’s area of
residence did not have a significant effect on Early Childhood Caries
(ECC) at the 0.1 level of significance in the unadjusted logistic
regression analysis, nor was it found to be a confounder of the effect
of race/ethnicity on ECC prevalence in the multivariable model.”
SOURCE: Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry63(1):38-46.
SOURCE: Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry63(1):38-46.
“Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of
baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among
poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water
supply.”
SOURCE: Von Burg MM et al. (1995). Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing 21: 515-519.
SOURCE: Von Burg MM et al. (1995). Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing 21: 515-519.
“Children attending centers showed no significant
differences (in baby bottle tooth decay) based on fluoride status for
the total sample or other variables.”
SOURCE: Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start children.Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.
SOURCE: Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of head start children.Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.
“Regardless of water fluoridation,
the prevalence of BBTD (baby bottle tooth decay) remained high at all
of the sites surveyed. More research needs to be done on the
relationship of fluoridated water and BBTD.
SOURCE: Kelly M, Bruerd B. (1987). The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry47:94-97.
SOURCE: Kelly M, Bruerd B. (1987). The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry47:94-97.
3. FLUORIDATION’S EFFECT ON SOCIAL INEQUALITIES:
“Water fluoridation aims to reduce social
inequalities in dental health, but few relevant studies exist.
The quality of research was even lower than that assessing overall
effects of fluoridation.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.
“There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.”
SOURCE: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2003). What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found. University of York.
SOURCE: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2003). What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found. University of York.
“In this study in oral epidemiology, officially
collected statistics are presented which show that, 15 yr after
fluoridation commenced in Auckland, New Zealand, there was still a
significant correlation between dental health of children and their
social class. They also show that treatment levels have continued to
decline in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, and are related to
social class factors rather than to the presence or absence of water
fluoridation… When the socioeconomic variable is allowed for, dental
health appears to be better in the unfluoridated areas.”
SOURCE: Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41.
SOURCE: Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41.
No comments:
Post a Comment