Changes in dental fluorosis and dental caries in Newburgh and Kingston, New York.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the prevalence of dental fluorosis and dental caries had changed in a fluoridated community and a nonfluoridated community since an earlier study conducted in 1986. METHODS: Dental fluorosis and dental caries data were collected on 7- to 14-year-old lifelong residents (n = 1493) of Newburgh and Kingston, NY. RESULTS: Estimated dental fluorosis prevalence rates were 19.6% in Newburgh and 11.7% in Kingston. The greatest disparity in caries scores was observed between poor and nonpoor children in nonfluoridated Kingston. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of dental fluorosis has not declined in Newburgh and Kingston, whereas the prevalence of dental caries has continued to decline.

Preliminary Evidence of an Association Between COL1A2 Polymorphisms and Dental Fluorosis in a Population with High Fluoride Exposure

“…1,2 Epidemiological studies have found differences in fluorosis prevalence among racial/ethnic groups that do not appear to be explained by levels of fluoride intake. [3][4] These provide indirect support for a possible genetic contribution to the etiology of dental fluorosis in humans.…”

“…The determination of case status was based on fluorosis evaluation using Dean's method. Seventy-five of the 240 children were designated as cases based on the presence of very mild to severe fluorosis (grades [2][3][4][5]; 165 children were designated as controls based on categorizations of normal or questionable fluorosis (grades 0-1).…”

Association between Dental Caries and Fluorosis among South Australian Children

“…Most of the studies examining the effects of fluoride on children's oral health in populations with controlled fluoridation programmes such as water or salt fluoridation or widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste indicated that higher fluoride exposure was associated with a higher prevalence of fluorosis and a lower experience of caries [Ellwood and O'Mullane, 1994;Lewis and Banting, 1994;O'Mullane, 1994;Jackson et al, 1995;Selwitz et al, 1995;Heller et al, 1997;Ismail et al, 1998;Kumar et al, 1998;McDonagh et al, 2000;CDC, 2001b;Stephen et al, 2002;Marinho et al, 2003;Whelton et al, 2004]. The two main fluoride-related population preventive approaches of water or salt fluoridation and the use of fluoridated toothpaste for brushing have been found to increase the risk for fluorosis [Mascarenhas, 2000;Levy, 2003].…”

What we know and do not know about fluoride

“…When the original studies of Newburg and Kingston (both were similar socioeconomically) were conducted, there was a clear difference between caries rates in fluoridated Newburg and nonfluoridated Kingston. This difference only holds when similar socioeconomic groups are compared (61). It is more likely that these differences are due to use of self‐applied preventive agents such as fluoride dentifrices than due to differences in diet and widespread consumption of junk food, soft drinks, and sugar snacks (62).…”