CWF As An Equitable And Effective Public Health Case Study

If left untreated, pulp infection can lead to abscess, destruction of bone, and systemic infection (Cawson et al. 1982; USDHHS 2000). Various sources have concluded that water fluoridation has been an effective method for preventing dental decay (Newbrun 1989; Ripa 1993; Horowitz 1996; CDC 2001; Truman et al. 2002). Water fluoridation is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the 10 great public health achievements in the United States, because of its role in reducing tooth decay in children and tooth loss in adults (CDC 1999). Each U.S. Surgeon General has endorsed water fluoridation over the decades it has been practiced, emphasizing that “[a] significant advantage of water fluoridation is that all residents of a community can enjoy its protective benefit…. A person’s income level or ability to receive dental care is not a barrier to receiving fluoridation’s health benefits” (Carmona 2004). As noted earlier, this report does not evaluate nor make judgments about the benefits, safety, or efficacy of artificial water fluoridation. That practice is reviewed only in terms of being a source of exposure to

The prevention of caries is accomplished through the execution of a variety of measures, such as the fluoridation of the drinking water supply as well as the utilization of sealants and topical fluorides (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Despite the ease of preventability of tooth decay, it is one of the most common childhood chronic diseases, with more than half of the nation’s children having detectable caries (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Unfortunately, only 62% of water supplies are fluoridated, and underserved communities with low-income and minority families are usually the ones who are disproportionately affected (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). Low-income individuals are generally less likely to seek preventative care, increasing their costs of neglected oral diseases and morbidity factors (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). In addition, only one in five children who are covered by Medicaid are authorized for preventative oral healthcare, while restorative care is generally not even a consideration (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625).

Fluoridation of group drinking water is a main consideration in charge of the decrease in dental caries (tooth rot) . The historical backdrop of water fluoridation is a great case of clinical perception prompting epidemiologic examination and group based general wellbeing intercession. Albeit other fluoride-containing items are accessible, water fluoridation remains the most fair and practical strategy for conveying fluoride to all individuals from most groups, paying little respect to age, instructive achievement, or wage level.

The Indicated Review had 80 studies involving 11,337 students (Weissberg, Taylor, Schellinger, Payton, Pachan, Dymicki and Durlak,

While these studies provide positive results the draw back to them are that the sample groups for each were considerably small which means that there is insufficient evidence to support

Studies show that dental caries does not increase following the cessation of fluoridated water (21,22)

In the first case study, the public health dental hygienist is responsible for evaluating the daily fluoridation test that is submitted by each state to make sure it is in the optimal range 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011) She is also responsible for working with the state if the test results do not measure up the standards set forth by the CDC. In addition the dental hygienist reports all of these results to Centers for Disease control and Prevention (CDC) so the CDC can determine a national average. This case study shows the “assessment” part of the essential public health services.

A. the literature review provided articles that were relevant and a number of relevant studies and theories were described throughout the study.

(2015) and Dodd et al. (2014), Decker & Lipton (2015) have utilized data qualitatively, which verily served the purpose of gaining rich information on the perceptions of the respondents on dental care and health. This is also important to consider, especially since most of the studies are done quantitatively. Although both qualitative and quantitative studies are good on their own, both also have considerable weaknesses. It would be interesting as well to see more researches done in mixed method in order to fill in the weaknesses of these two. It will be also good to note if the study by Decker & Lipton (2015) can be replicated in different sample—such as other minority groups or a more heterogeneous sample. In this way, the scholar literature can be expanded by our knowledge about dental health that is growing to be a public health issue in United States and in other parts of the world. Given the qualitative data gathered by Decker & Lipton (2015), it will be helpful if better public policies are made to cater to these sensitive populations. This is also true in the suggestion of Dodd et al. (2014) on the widening of the Medicaid coverage among adults—and on the reconsideration not to deflouridate the water supply in New York in the study by Edelstein et al. (2015). As mentioned by Edelstein et al. (2015), removing the fluoride content in the New York water supply could only worsen the rates of early childhood carries. In the long run,

“The impact of unmet oral health care needs is magnified by the well-established connection between oral health and overall health” (Fineberg, H. 2011, p. ix). Oral health status is linked with general health, as evidenced by the association between poor oral health and chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. Poor oral hygiene can also lead to other health issues such as, oral facial pain and digestive problems. “The silent epidemic of oral diseases disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities,

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommendation for the optimal fluoride level in drinking water to prevent tooth decay have changed from 0.7 -1.2 milligrams per liter stablished in 1962 to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. This change was the result of a systematic reviews of the scientific evidence related community water fluoridation since it was incorporated in 1945. As a result of community water fluoridation there was an increase in the percentage of children who were caries-free and a significant decreases in the number of teeth or tooth surfaces with caries in both children and adult. The main reason to lower the recommendation was because Americans nowadays have more sources of fluoride than the ones

Among these 1195 studies 999 abstracts were reviewed. 36 full paper have been chosen. Twelve studies were selected among thousand based on very a strict criteria (Hogan, Smart, Shah, and Taddio, 2014, p.

This study was limited due to the small sample size. Although the conclusions are valid, more research with a

Results: A total of 742 articles were found. Regarding the research goal, seven articles were finally reviewed after