- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 6,021
- Reactions
- 1,656
Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.
8.1.3.8 Dental effects
It has been recognized for over five decades that fluoride may have both beneficial and potentially harmful effects on dental health. While the prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to a range of concentrations of fluoride in drinking-water consumed, the prevalence of dental fluorosis has been shown to be positively related to fluoride intake from many sources (Fejerskov et al., 1988, 1996). Public health programmes seeking to maximize the beneficial effects of fluoride on dental health through the introduction of fluoridated drinking-water have, at the same time, strived to minimize its adverse fluorotic effects on teeth. Based upon the studies conducted by Dean and colleagues five decades ago, the "optimum" level of fluoride in drinking-water, associated with the maximum level of dental caries protection and minimum level of dental fluorosis, was considered to be approximately 1 mg/litre. The effects of fluoride on dental health were examined by a WHO Expert Committee (WHO, 1994).
1) Dental caries
Since the first reports by Dean and colleagues published in the 1930s, oral fluoride is still considered an effective means of reducing dental caries. Historically, populations consuming fluoridated drinking-water had a much lower prevalence of dental caries than did those consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water. Over time, the difference in caries prevalence among those consuming fluoridated and non-fluoridated drinking-water has narrowed significantly. This apparent diminution in the cariostatic effectiveness of fluoridated drinking-water is likely attributable to a "diffusion" in which individuals consuming non-fluoridated drinking-water may consume significant amounts of beverages prepared in other locales with fluoridated drinking-water, as well as exposure to fluoride through the use of dental care products — mainly fluoridated toothpaste. It has been estimated that whereas approximately 210 million individuals throughout the world consume drinking-water containing levels of fluoride considered adequate for the prevention of dental caries, approximately 500 million people use fluoridated toothpastes (WHO, 1994).
'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American
NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Some recent studies suggest that
over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors
(January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to
shift," writes author Dan Fagin.
"Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of
public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no
scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness," says lawyer
Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
"There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride."
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.
Doesn't the mechanical action of brushing over time erode the enamel and reduce fluoride content?
Initially yes. But what about the effect of pH cycling. In this what-if scenerio (not necessairly Julia), could not the significant acidic juice and brushing be considered or at least have the effect of a lesion on the tooth enamel, then as fluoridated water and food started to come into the equation with pH cycling, the reminerilastion occurs mainly around the lesion (enamel) and draws mineral from deeper in the dentin, and if the dentin was already low in mineral but not quite noticable, it could now be very noticable?
Believe whatever you want Ozwave, In the meantime I've decided I'll use the best available evidence to form my belief which I can then communicate to my patients.
Also, if it's good in the opinion of the World health Organization, then that's another reason I'm happy
If people start producing high quality evidence to suggest otherwise, only then I'll change my mind.
If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.
I will probably tend to trust the opinion of the dentist who actually saw the problem with my teeth at the time, and before having the expense of veneers, over someone on the internet who has not seen and may not be fully aware of all the circumstances.
To do so is, imo, unethical and an infringement of individual rights. That is all I'm concerned about.
It's not about changing your mindit's about looking after the health of the population - based on your lust for fluoride it appears that you would never admit anything was wrong even if the WHO came back and said it was bad in a "spinful" way..
Thank you.Of course, No problems.
This is what my first post said:(However this is a discussion forum - perhaps in future reconsider raising these sorts of issues if you don't want it discussed!)
The Queensland government has announced it will put fluoride in the water supply from next year.
Quite apart from the moral issue of mass medicating the whole population, I cannot drink fluoridated water for various other health related reasons.
Does anyone know of a filter system which will remove fluoride?
Has anyone successfully fought local or State governments on this issue?
So far I've just come up against the predictable bureaucratic brick wall.
Any input would be appreciated.
Gotta love your spin.
What I stated was that further investigation is needed, hence a suspension of fluoride use is required until more Independent and complete studies be conducted. For those like yourself that believe in the propaganda then Government supplied fluoride tablets will suffice.
This sounds to me to be a logical approach, doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and supports those that want to medicate themselves with an S6 poison, er, nutrient.
Personally OWG, I prefer to side with the WHO instead of you, or perhaps you would like to provide a cost-benefit study which shows fluoridation is ineffective.
8.1.3.8 Dental effects
2) Dental fluorosis
Since the publication of the WHO (1994) assessment on the quantitative relationship between dental fluorosis and fluoride intake, a large number of further studies have been published on the matter. A recent meta-analysis (McDonagh et al., 2000) of such studies is presented in Figures 2 and 3.
Dental fluorosis is a condition that results from the intake of excess levels of fluoride during the period of tooth development, usually from birth to approximately 6–8 years of age. It has been termed a hypoplasia or hypomineralization of dental enamel and dentine and is associated with the excessive incorporation of fluoride into these structures. The severity of this condition, generally characterized as ranging from very mild to severe, is related to the extent of fluoride exposure during the period of tooth development. Mild dental fluorosis is usually typified by the appearance of small white areas in the enamel; individuals with severe dental fluorosis have teeth that are stained and pitted ("mottled") in appearance. In human fluorotic teeth, the most prominent feature is a hypomineralization of the enamel. In contrast to many animal species, fluoride-induced enamel hypoplasia (indicating severe fluoride disturbance of enamel matrix production) seems to be rare in fluorosed human enamel. The staining and pitting of fluorosed dental enamel are both posteruptive phenomena (i.e., acquired after tooth eruption and occur as a consequence of the enamel hypomineralization). The incorporation of excessive amounts of fluoride into enamel is believed to interfere with its normal maturation, as a result of alterations in the rheologic structure of the enamel matrix and/or effects on cellular metabolic processes associated with normal enamel development (WHO, 1994; Aoba, 1997; Whitford, 1997). Experimental animal studies suggest that this hypomineralization results from fluoride disturbance of the process of enamel maturation (Richards et al., 1986).
Unlike skeletal fluorosis, which is considered to be a marker of long-term exposure to fluoride (due to the ongoing process of bone remodelling), dental fluorosis is considered to be indicative of the level of exposure to fluoride only during the period of enamel formation. Exposure to excessive levels of fluoride after tooth development appears to have little influence on the extent of fluorosis. Re-evaluation of classical fluorosis data (Dean et al., 1941, 1942; Richards et al., 1967; Butler et al., 1985) has shown that even at low fluoride intake from water, a certain level of dental fluorosis will be found (Fejerskov et al., 1996). A dose–response relationship was also demonstrated. The data demonstrated an increase of the fluorosis community index by 0.2 for every dose increase of 0.01 mg fluoride/kg body weight.
Over the past 30–40 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis among populations consuming either fluoridated or non-fluoridated drinking-water. Although greater numbers of individuals are now being served by fluoridated drinking-water, for the most part this increased prevalence in dental fluorosis has been attributed to the widespread intake of fluoride from sources other than drinking-water, especially in areas served by non-fluoridated drinking-water. Unlike the situation in the 1930s, when the primary sources of exposure to fluoride were limited to drinking-water and foodstuffs, now there is potential exposure to fluoride from a variety of additional sources, such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride supplements and topically applied dental gels, solutions and varnishes. Exposure to fluoride may also result from the ingestion of fluoridated salt or fluoridated milk.
The prevalence of dental fluorosis is also elevated in certain areas of the world where the intake of fluoride may be inordinately high, due in large part to the elevated fluoride content of the surrounding geological environment. In China, large numbers of people exhibit dental fluorosis (Liu, 1995). In addition to the actual consumption of often large amounts of drinking-water containing naturally occurring elevated levels of fluoride, the indoor burning of coal rich in fluoride, the preparation of foodstuffs in water containing increased fluoride levels and the consumption of specific foodstuffs naturally rich in fluoride, such as tea, are believed to contribute to the elevated intake of fluoride, with the resultant development of dental fluorosis (Chen et al., 1993, 1996; Grimaldo et al., 1995; Han et al., 1995; Liu, 1995; Xu et al., 1995).
Interesting...
If you could all carry on your squabble without using me as a point of reference, I would appreciate it.
Yes, over time generally meaning many years, probably decades. Julia said it occured over only one month.
I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm reading it as though you are saying the enamel remineralises by 'sucking out' mineral from the dentine.
In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.Where did you read or hear about this?
In order to remineralise, enamel requires minerals from saliva and the tooth pellicle, however, it doesn't remineralise from the dentine. We can see this from SEM scans, which would show demineralised enamel remineralising from the outside-in, not the inside-out.
I'm doing my best Julia.
I did adopt my writing style to 'third person' and (what-if) specifically to depersonalise the conversation and focus on the physiological process of fluoridation that the pro fluoridation lobby tend to avoid by relying on headline banners.
Billy, you are not familiar with pH cycling! It's a concept used extensively in the medical and agricultural sciences that I'm more familiar with.
]
In a clinical dentistry book. I don't recall the exact title. Maybe it was more a specialist publication because it got into some pretty heavy detail pyhsiological analysis.
[/COLOR]
I do know what pH cycling is.
However, I don't know where you're going with all this. I don't want to fluff around too much about this, it doesn't need to be excessively technical.
If you'd be so kind to make your point or argument clear and concise then I'll have something to direct my post toward.
My point is that you didn't acknowledge the effect of pH cycling in the context of a more volatile substance, 'fluoride' in the demineralising and remineralising of teeth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?