The ingestion of fluoride has been associated to benefits for the teeth. According to some observers in the past, fluoride strengthens the enamel of the teeth making it not so susceptible to cavities. From this hypothesis the fluoridation of water had its start and until today it is believed to be one of the most responsible sources for reducing cavities in the population (Graham & Morin, 1999). In some author’s view the fluoridation of the water implies a significant change and the positive effects can been seen in the so-called post-fluoride generation. In this generation the number of adults without any teeth has dramatically declined and similar improvements can be observed in the periodontal health − related to gums and supporting structures of teeth − (Milgrom & Reisine, 2000). However the lack of consideration of fluoride’s potential to be harmful to human’s health is questionable and studies have pointed out the dark side of this compound (Bryson, 2006). A study conducted in the cities of Newburgh and Kingston, in New York have shown that the prevalence of cavities in the population is similar or even less in communities that doesn’t have artificial fluoridated water compared to the ones that have fluoride add to the water. This study conducted forty years ago is one considerable evidence that fluoridating the water isn’t strongly necessary nowadays to prevent tooth decay, considering that the access to fluoridated products, such as toothpaste, mouthwash and
Another issue of controversy is the safety of the chemicals used to fluoridate water. The most commonly used additives are silicofluorides, not the fluoride salts used in dental products (such as sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride). Silicofluorides are one of the by-products from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. The toxicity database on silicofluorides is sparse and questions have been raised about the assumption that they completely dissociate in water and, therefore, have toxicity similar to the fluoride salts tested in laboratory studies and used in consumer products (Coplan and Masters 2001). It also has been maintained that, because of individual variations in exposure to fluoride, it is difficult to ensure that the right individual dose to protect against dental caries is provided through large-scale water fluoridation. In addition, a body of information has developed that indicates the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic (Zero et al. 1992; Rölla and Ekstrand 1996; Featherstone 1999; Limeback 1999a; Clarkson and McLoughlin 2000; CDC 2001; Fejerskov
Nearly 145 million Americans are currently receiving the benefits of optimally fluoridated water. With the 1995 enactment of Assembly Bill 733 in California, ten states and territories in the United States now mandate fluoridation through legislation. Besides California, these include seven other states (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota), as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three states (South Dakota, Rhode Island and Kentucky), as well as the District of Columbia, have achieved the ultimate success with 100 percent of their treatable community water systems providing the benefits of fluoridation to their citizens.
The NRC reported in 2007 that fluoride was considered an element essential to life. Fluoride plays an important role in the body’s ability to perform metabolic and biochemical reactions that help prevent tooth decay and help bone formation. Essentially the government says that the fluoridation of water is more helpful than harmful for people as it is a good use of tax dollars as it treats upper class and lower class citizens equally in dental prevention.
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.
Studies show that dental caries does not increase following the cessation of fluoridated water (21,22)
Fluoride has been used by people for many decades. The most common use is in toothpaste. Fluoride was added to toothpaste to lower the amount of dental cavities that one gets, and works by protecting the enamel (outer hard layer over the tooth). Another use of fluoride is in drinking water. It was added to drinking water to also help with tooth decay. Many people are debating whether or not this is truly safe. In the essay, “The Fluoride Conspiracy”, by Laurie Higgs, she talks about the use of fluoride drinking waters and dangers it brings by using logos, pathos, and ethos.
This is because according to the department of health, Rnzcgp this process is not able to be regulated and the dosage is dependent on the person’s circumstances i.e age which can result in health problems. When too large a dose is absorbed into the system according to the The United Nation news it can cause health issues relating to skeletal and dental fluorosis. The compound is also shown to affect the brain and kidney negatively. Fluoridation is a system by which the town or country is taking responsibility for its people. The proposed action is not to fluoridate teeth by adding fluoride to the entire water supply which will affect every person’s entire body with fluoride, but to instead educate about the benefits of using toothpaste which people already commonly use. People can suffer adverse effects because the government would further their own goal. There is no controversy about the people and side effect because I propose not fluoridating. So the evidence is that there will be 100% no risk to getting the side effects, and yet there is no limitation of restricting tooth hygiene and maintaining tooth health through personal care. The evidence of science is that not using a material eliminates the potential for side effects. Personally I find that instead of treating drinking water we should be treating personal care products such as tooth paste which is more effective action. Therefore there is no risk of affecting the entire population in the hands of just a
According to World Health Organization data obtained from a study on 12 year old’s levels of tooth decay, fluoride has had very little effect, if any at all, on tooth decay. Countries such as Japan, Italy, and Iceland, who are non-fluoridated countries, actually have about the same level of tooth decay decrease as countries that have fluoridated water. Fluoride is considered a drug, according to the FDA, which means that it is a medical treatment. Medical treatments are not to be given unless the patient agrees to the treatment, therefore, placing fluoride into the public water supply violates informed consent seeing as how citizens are not given the opportunity to vote on the matter. Even if people could vote on the situation, not all people are going to agree with and since it is considered a drug, it
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
Research has been showed that such an improvement is due to many factors that combined together. One of these factors is systemic water fluoridation, which has been announced to have a substantial impact on children dental health, alongside with topical fluoride that can be found in mouthwash, toothpaste, and fluoride supplements. In addition to better nutrition, rising standards of living, and better access to dental care 76.
Fluorine is added in water in certain countries and used in toothpaste so that it can strengthen people’s teeth.
The main form of protection against caries is fluoride. Fluoride is of the utmost importance because it helps teeth remineralize, and slows down the progression of caries. Among one of the studies done to determine whether or not fluoride has a protective effect against caries, Dr. Douglass of University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine has found that fluoride significantly decreases cavities (2). Her study shows that the odds ratio for caries incidence between fluoridated teeth versus non-fluoridated teeth was 3.8 (95% CI: 1.9, 7.6). Additionally, she found a significant decrease in DFS (decayed/filled) scores for cavitated lesions with high fluoride treatment compared to no treatment at all. This article helps prove that fluoride applied to teeth is a protective factor against
Credibility Statement: As a person who has been brushing his teeth for many years without knowing the effects that fluoride can cause, I decided to do extensive research on the topic to find out what we are really putting in our bodies.
The state of Washington is now mandating fluoride be maintained in all public drinking water sources. Washington state Department of Health states that a mandated fluoridated water policy would be the most effective method to combat oral health diseases and that it is a proven technique. The Washington State board of health has adopted the recommendation from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to produce a rule for public drinking water to maintain fluoride levels of 0.7ml/L (Washington State Department of Health, 2017). All of Washington state’s water supply is naturally fluoridated. Even though all water sources have fluoride in Washington, the fluoride levels are not equal. These natural fluoride