Florida - Letter: Evidence of effectiveness of fluoridation is lacking
Letter: Evidence of effectiveness of fluoridation is lacking
Sunday, December 30, 2007
As a dentist with a master’s degree in public health for more than 25 years, I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities is unnecessary. Most European dental associations no longer recommend it.
Dentists are puzzled and can’t explain why fluoridation no longer appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical products and post-harvest fumigants, has reached high enough levels to provide the so-called “optimal” dose.
Significant increase in dental fluorosis in children, from 22 percent to 32 percent, supports this theory. Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay, and flawed historical studies are at fault. The evidence is strong — fluoridation no longer reduces tooth decay. Evidence for fluoridation intervention is lacking.
Dental expenses are a good example. After 60 years of fluoridation, people fluoridated should show a reduction in dental expenses if fluoridation were effective. Several studies have shown either no reduction in dental expenses or slight increases.
Non-fluoridated Portland, Ore. (19 percent of Oregon is fluoridated) had $210 average, annual dental expenses per person. Across the river, fluoridated Vancouver, Wash. (46 percent of Washington was fluoridated at the time) had $215. Add the cost of bottled water for infants and those who choose not to have fluoridated water, medical risks and cosmetic treatments for dental fluorosis damage, fluoridation equipment, chemicals and maintenance, and fluoridation makes no cents or sense, unless you own the company profiting.
Public health agencies are marching soldiers and do not question their orders. They have been told to “promote fluoridation,” and they do so, regardless of the evidence.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
Sunday, December 30, 2007
As a dentist with a master’s degree in public health for more than 25 years, I promoted water fluoridation and fluoride supplements. Current research has shifted, finding fluoridation in developed communities is unnecessary. Most European dental associations no longer recommend it.
Dentists are puzzled and can’t explain why fluoridation no longer appears to reduce dental decay. One theory is the total fluoride intake from all sources, such as pesticides, dental and medical products and post-harvest fumigants, has reached high enough levels to provide the so-called “optimal” dose.
Significant increase in dental fluorosis in children, from 22 percent to 32 percent, supports this theory. Another theory is fluoridation never did reduce tooth decay, and flawed historical studies are at fault. The evidence is strong — fluoridation no longer reduces tooth decay. Evidence for fluoridation intervention is lacking.
Dental expenses are a good example. After 60 years of fluoridation, people fluoridated should show a reduction in dental expenses if fluoridation were effective. Several studies have shown either no reduction in dental expenses or slight increases.
Non-fluoridated Portland, Ore. (19 percent of Oregon is fluoridated) had $210 average, annual dental expenses per person. Across the river, fluoridated Vancouver, Wash. (46 percent of Washington was fluoridated at the time) had $215. Add the cost of bottled water for infants and those who choose not to have fluoridated water, medical risks and cosmetic treatments for dental fluorosis damage, fluoridation equipment, chemicals and maintenance, and fluoridation makes no cents or sense, unless you own the company profiting.
Public health agencies are marching soldiers and do not question their orders. They have been told to “promote fluoridation,” and they do so, regardless of the evidence.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
posted by Bill at
9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home