Fluoride Information

Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. When in doubt, get it out.


An American Affidavit

Friday, November 28, 2014

Fluoridation Effects on Skeletal and Dental Health: A United States and International Review Kimberly Draper RN, BSN, Veronica Farrell RN, BSN, Kathleen Fitzgerald RN, BSN, James Kirby RN, BSN, and Robert Nelson RN, BSN




Fluoridation Effects on Skeletal and Dental Health: A United States and International Review
Kimberly Draper RN, BSN, Veronica Farrell RN, BSN, Kathleen Fitzgerald RN, BSN, James Kirby RN, BSN, and Robert Nelson RN, BSN
Abstract
Introduction
        Since its conception fluoridation of the water supply has been a controversial issue.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cites water fluoridation as one of the ten most important public health achievements of the 21st century in regards to the decrease in dental caries (CDC, 2013).  However, some still question its effectiveness, morality and safety.  There are two governmental bodies that oversee water fluoridation: The Environmental Protection Agency and the CDC (CDC, 2013). The EPA’s role is to assure that the fluoride concentration in the drinking water remains under the maximum contaminant level goal, this is the level at which no adverse health effects from fluoride are estimated to occur (National Research Council, 2006).  This was decreed by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.  It is not the role of the EPA to determine the level of fluoride necessary for caries prevention (National Research Council, 2006). The level of fluoride correlated with decreased caries is determined by the CDC (CDC, 2013).
        Currently more than 204 million Americans consume fluoridated water in concentrations thought to be effective in preventing dental caries (CDC, 2013). The current recommendations are for a fluoride concentration of 0.7 to 1.2milligrams/liter (CDC, 2013). Adding fluoride to the water supply was thought to be an easy, cost-effective measure in reducing caries rates, especially in marginal populations (CDC, 2013). It is important to note that the concept of water fluoridation affects a multitude of people in the United States; understanding its effect on the human body is an important public health issue. It is impossible to know the weight, water, other beverage
consumption, food intake, medical history and concurrent medications of all individuals consuming fluoridated water, thus making it difficult to estimate total daily fluoride intake and its effects.
 Understanding the risks and benefits associated with the effects of fluoride on skeletal and dental health is relevant for nurses to understand due to its long-lasting effects and contributions to possibly increasing fracture risks and weakening the quality of bones. More importantly, this review of fluoridation demonstrates the ambiguity of the results found and stresses that more high quality, evidence-based research should be done in order to determine the effects of fluoridating water and its impact on all Americans who drink water from a fluoridated water supply.  The purpose of this paper is to review current articles examining the health effects of fluoride. When ingested from the water supply the effects are systemic, however, this review is specific to bone and dental outcomes in regards to fluoride consumption. The clinical significance of the review indicates that there is a knowledge gap related to the risks and benefits associated with fluoride and skeletal and bone health.
Methods
Research studies were gathered after developing a database of search words that were placed into CINAHL, EBSCO, ProQuest, and PubMed.  These studies were used to compile and analyze the research question of: Fluoridation Effects on Skeletal and Dental Health: A United States and International Review
The key search words utilized were: fluoride, dental caries, bone, health, and fluoridated water.  The pertinent literature was used was from eighteen articles, dated 2006-2014, four articles were dropped due to their late year of printing, one was discarded because it focused on neurotoxicity effects on patients more than orthopedic responses from long term consumption of fluoride.  Studies other than that of bone and tooth health were excluded from this research project.  Sample demographics included; age groups from pediatrics to geriatrics of both males and females of several countries.  Articles were gathered from several worldwide points of research, providing a common global effect of fluoride on bone.
Countries included for the study research were from, Australia, China, England, Germany, Great Britain, India, USA, Netherlands, and South Africa.  Considerations of fluoride intake via oral fluids, water, and supplements as well as external, such as fluoridated toothpaste and manual application of rinses were included. It was discovered that there is no method of determining an accurate intake of fluoride for any particular person.  Variables such as volumes of fluorinated fluid a person consumes, what medications they were taking that contained fluoride, and if they took fluoride supplements or a rinse was a common confounder in our research.
The research questions were addressed utilizing content analysis to identify study characteristics. Such characteristics included conceptual and theoretical framework used to form this presentation.  Five members of our group gathered, reviewed, and collaborated on the appropriate studies to include out of the original 23 studies gathered from our searches.
Results
The results of human exposure to fluoride varied greatly across the studies reviewed.  Phipps (2000) found that women with continuous exposure to fluoride experienced 31% less hip fractures (P = 0.028) and 27% less vertebral fractures (P = 0.033). There was an increased risk of wrist fractures (P=0.051) and a decreased risk of humerus fractures (P=0.387), however such results were not statistically significant. Li (2001) found that long-term exposure to water with fluoride levels greater than 4.32 part per million (ppm) increased the risk for hip fractures among Chinese subjects. Long-term exposure to water with fluoride levels of 1.00-1.06 ppm significantly lowered the risk of bone fracture (p< 0.05). Pizzo (2007) suggests topical fluoride reduces caries in industrialized and developing countries.
Vestergaard (2008) found that fluoride treatment increased hip and spine bone mineral density by 2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9%, 3.4%, p<0.01, n=1,434) and 7.9% (95% CI: 5.4%, 10.5%, p<0.001, n=1,774) respectively. A longer duration of fluoride treatment was associated with an increase in spinal bone mineral density (5.04 +/ 2.16 per cent per year of treatment). Sub-group analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in both vertebral (odds ratio (OR) 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.87, six studies, n=593) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.76, six studies, n=768) when the daily dose of fluoride was 20 mg or less. Higher doses of fluoride was associated with an increase in vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, however, this was not a statistically significant finding.
Bassin, Wypij, Davis, and Mittleman (2006) found males (but not females) exposed to fluoride in their drinking water during childhood were at increased risk of developing osteosarcoma before age 20 (OR 5.46; 95% CI: 1.50, 19.90). Levy and Leclerc (2012) found the increased risk of osteosarcoma in American males versus female aged 15-19 (p<0.001) was not related to the fluoridation status in their respective states. Blakey et al. (2014) found similar results to that of Levy and Leclerc (2012) whereby in Great Britain, no relationship between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma was found (relative risk (RR) per one ppm increase in the level of fluoride = 1.001; 90% CI: 0.871, 1.151). A connection between water fluoridation and Ewing’s sarcoma was also unable to be found (RR = 0.929; 90% CI: 0.773, 1.115). Additionally,Chachra, Limeback, Willett, and Grynpas (2010), Levy et al. (2014), and Jones, Riley, Couper, and Dwyer (2008) did not find enough evidence to suggest an association between water fluoridation and negative bone health.
Odiyo and Makungo (2012) found an increased incidence of dental fluorosis in African households that use groundwater with levels of fluoride exceeding 1.5 mg/l.  Similarly, Wondwossen, Astrom, Bjorvatn, and Bardsen (2004) found a 91.8% and 100% increase in dental fluorosis among Ethiopian children who drank water with fluoride levels of 0.3–2.2 mg/l and 10–14 mg/l respectively.  Kakumanu (2013) found a serum fluoride level of 0.43 mg/l or fluoride intake of greater than 20 mg per day (about 100-150 tea bags) can lead to skeletal fluorosis. . Chen et al. (2013) Fluoride intake of 3.475mg/L, on average, over a long period of time (~10yrs) causes dental fluorosis, changes in bone metabolism, and bone damage among children of Chinese villages.
As a result of a literature review, Harding and O’Mullane (2013) found between 1983 and 1984, dental caries had decreased at a greater rate in fluoridated communities since the 1970 initiation of fluoride in drinking water in Ireland at 0.8-1.0 ppm. When re-assessed in 2002, a similar finding of decreased caries in fluoridated communities was present. However, rates of dental fluorosis increased at a greater rate in communities with fluoridated water than those with non-fluoridated water.  
Discussion
Dentist Frederick McKay, in the dawn of  the 20th century, initiated the water fluoridation research that continues through the present day.30,35 Dr McKay was inquisitive regarding the distinctive brown stains he was noticing on the teeth of  many of his Colorado patients. Distinctive brown stains that were evidently highly resistant to caries lesions. Dr. McKay referred to these stains as “mottled enamel”. Dr McKay subsequently found mottled enamel in other communities throughout the United States.5,29-30 Inquisition formulated the hypothesis that something in the drinking water was responsible for the caries resistant mottled enamel. Chemist H.V. Churchill took up the mantel in the 1930’s conducting water analysis and subsequently identifying fluoride as the etiological agent of the mottled enamel. The term mottled enamel would then be replaced with enamel fluorosis.5,29-30 Joining these efforts was a Public Health scientist named H. Trendley Dean, who initiated a series of epidemiological investigations to test the hypothesis that increased fluoride concentration in water supplies was associated with a reduction in caries prevalence.5 During this time period, the so-called 21-City study conducted in Colorado, Illinois and Ohio confirmed this inverse relationship between increased fluoride concentration in drinking water and caries prevention. When fluoride levels were found to be up to 1.0 ppm in drinking water, researchers  observed a  lower prevalence of fluorosis (10-12%) and even the 10-12% was considered a very mild fluorosis.  On the contrary, fluorosis increased when the fluoride in drinking water exceeded the 10. ppm level.5,29 These early findings became the genesis for the creation of community water fluoridation programs in the United States and Canada.6 
  Over ten years later,  Grand Rapids Michigan became the first city in the world to manipulate the public water supply raising the fluoride level to 1 ppm. 5,29 Around this time, the town of Aurora Illinois (whose water was naturally fluoridated at 1.4 ppm) and the town of Muskegon Missouri (the experimental control) became subjects in a clinical study on the effects of water fluoridation on caries.5,19  Joining this important research was  Newburgh, NY and Kingston NY as the control city. Followed in 1946, with Wvanston, Illinois and Oak Park, Illinois as the control, and in Ontario Canada Brantford and Sarnia as control and  naturally fluoridated Stratford.  Six years later it was reported that the children living in Grand Rapids developed caries during the period of water fluoridation at a rate half  of  the rate of the children living in Muskegon (the experimental control town)  and had similar levels to those seen in Aurora (naturally fluoridated town).9 Subsequent sequential cross-sectional investigations over 13-15 years demonstrated  a caries reduction of 50-70% in children living within the fluoridated communities.Motivated by these long-term community studies, the introduction of water fluoridation gained momentum in the USA and in a number of other countries throughout the world.6,19,29

   Since the 1950’s within the United States, as well as throughout the world, there has existed a dissenting voice resisting the fluoridation of community water. This dissenting voice has been expressed within a multitude of organizations opposed to the addition of fluoride in the public water systems. Principled concern included the issue of freedom of choice, as well as perceived and potential risks to human health posed by fluoride.8,31 Conflicting studies linking/not linking fluoride to numerous disease states, cancer, Downs’ syndrome, intelligence, and an increase in fracture rate have created public confusion.28-29,31 Presently,  a multitude  of  particularly European countries do not or no longer maintain  water fluoridation schemes  on grounds of a believed  violation of medical ethics. The argument involves Silico-fluorides being used in water fluoridation being regarded as the addition of an unlicensed medical substances being added to the water,  and as a human rights argument. Silico-fluorides being administered to large populations without informed consent or medical supervision.8,13,19

Water Fluoridation In The World

Current estimates place  over  300 million people in 39 countries worldwide residing in communities depended on water supplies being fluoridated.3,29 Here in the United States in excess of 170 million people (67% of the population) currently reside in communities enhancing their water supply with fluoride.31 

Role of water fluoridation in caries prevention :

Systemic vs topical effect of fluoride

For many decades the presumption has been that fluoride benefits occur before teeth emerge by  incorporating into  hydroxyapatite crystals and  leading to the formation of fluorapatite, a less soluble enamel apatite.12 Twenty years of research later we have a new understanding.6,12,15,23

A number of studies showed that the differences in fluoride concentration in surface enamel between permanent teeth from low-fluoride and fluoridated areas were minimal, whereas an inverse relationship between fluoride levels in enamel surface and caries experience was not found.12,15 Several laboratory investigations have clearly demonstrated that the presence of low levels of fluoride  (0.03 ppm or higher) in saliva and plaque fluid reduces the rates of enamel demineralization during the caries process and promotes the remineralization of early caries lesions.11-12,15 On the other hand, the level of fluoride incorporated into enamel by systematic ingestion was proved to have no significant effect in preventing / reversing caries.11 Moreover, the reexamination of clinical / epidemiological data fro early and recent community water fluoridation studies supported the current view that the cariostatic effect of fluoride is almost exclusively posteruptive and the mechanism of action is topical.12,15,23 A person living in a fluoridated community in fact may increase this level to about 0.04 ppm several times during the day.23 In addition, it has been found that fluoride may also affect oral plaque bacteria by the interference with acid production.3,6,11 The implications of these concepts are that frequent exposure to low concentration of fluoride in the oral cavity is the most important factor in preventing / controlling caries; on the other hand, the anticaries effects of systemic fluoride are recognized to be minimal.6,11,23,38

The impact of fluoride-containing products

In the decades past, a number of authors focused their attention on the caries trend within the communities without fluoridation in comparison to communities that ceased water fluoridation in comparison to communities without water fluoridation.1,5,15,19,21,23 In these communities during the years of water fluoridation, a caries reduction had been observed, but after the cessation, caries prevalence either did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further.15,21,23 These findings demonstrate that the cessation of fluoridating community water had no adverse effects on caries prevalence.

 Several epidemiologic studies have supported the evidence that the degree of caries reductions directly attributable to water fluoridation have fallen in recent decades. By 1985, within the United States caries levels in the permanent dentition of children living in community fluoridated areas was only 18% lower compared to children living in non-fluoridated areas.5 Among adolescents during this same time period the caries reduction attributable to community fluoridated water was 8-37% (mean: 26.5%).5 Within the past decade, the gap between caries rates between  fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities has been significantly lesser than decades prior.6,9,19,23,26 Within the  European nations that never initiated community water fluoridation programs, a significant reduction in caries rates has been demonstrated.26

  The body of literature attributes differing reasons as to the cause for this decline in caries rates. Many studies attribute  the introduction of fluorinated toothpaste in  the early 1970’s.6,9,11,26,29 The shrinking health advantage from community fluoridated water has been  attributed to the  robust expansion of  fluoride-containing products found in the market.  New  mouth rinses, bottled water, dietary supplements, and dentist applied or prescribed gels, foams, or varnishes.6,26 The utilization of these newer topical fluorides have generated caries reduction rates greater than the rates generated by community fluoridated water.36 Utilizing these new topical fluoride products the fluoride may be for up to 6 hours mix with the saliva and plaque in the oral cavity at concentrations that generate therapeutic effects on enamel demineralization / remineralization.11,23-24 Currently community fluoridated water programs are reducing caries rates by 15%.32,36 Fluoride toothpaste in conjunction with mouth rinse  reduces caries by 24-26%. The gels and foams reduced caries at a rate of about 26-28% whereby fluoride varnish reduced caries by about 46%.6,36

Water fluoridation and socioeconomic dental health inequalities

 Despite significant public health strides in the prevention of caries within the economies classified as developed, caries prevention rates remain stratified along socioeconomic levels.  And caries prevention  continues to this day to be a significant  public health problem for the majority of the world population residing in what are classified as developing nations.9,17,20,26 Studies conducted within and external to the United States have suggested community water fluoridation may reduce these oral health inequalities that exist between social classes.4,18,33 Other studies suggest an absence of evidence supporting this suggestion.27 As previously noted, confounding the debate are the studies that suggest advances in children oral health is attributable to a greater degree to fluoride-containing toothpaste as opposed to community fluoridated water systems.6,9,11,26,29 Variables such as  socioeconomic status, lifestyle and dietary habits  all affect the prevalence of caries making predictions more confounding.10,34

Irregardless of these trends, National and International agencies joined by dental associations continue to call for community water fluoridation programs targeting “underprivileged” communities.6,17,29,31-32 The World Health Organization’s World Oral Report 2003 in what appears to be more in line with the trends identified in the body of literature advances the pursuit of developing affordable toothpaste for utilization in communities identified underprivileged.32 In their report, the World Health Organization cited the economics of implementation of community water fluoridation programs versus the utilization of fluoride toothpastes.

Fluorosis: an emerging problem in fluoridated communities

Long term utilization of fluoride prior to the developmental emergence of our teeth may result in  Fluorosis.  Fluorosis is classified as a hypomineralization of bone enamel whereby the bone surface and subsurface become pourous. This pourousness of the bone causes the bone enamel to appear opace, pitted and or stained.3,6,31 Community fluoridated water supplies with a fluoride level of 1 ppm , may manifest  a community fluorosis prevalence of 51%. This has not become the significant public health concern it may well deserve due to the fact that the fluorosis tends to be denatured enough as to not be visible to the public. The aesthetics have yet to be influenced.3,16 Of concern however, is the body of literature illucidates a trend favoring an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis within communities forging ahead with community fluoridated water programs. One systematic review concluded that fluorosis to the degree to be of an aesthetic concern to the public affected 12.5% of the population residing in fluoridated communities in the United Kingdom.28 The public health concern is manifested by the fact that fluorosis, irregardless of  aesthetic degree is an early indication of  excessive intake of fluoride during the development of enamel formation.

As discussed earlier, the promotion of fluoride toothpaste versus the economics of community water fluoridation programs has been advocated. Of concern made manifest by the body of literature is the knowledge regarding young children’s inability to adequately and sufficiently expectorate the fluoride toothpaste enough to illiminate the risk of fluorosis.2-3,6,14 Risk of fluorosis is further manifest by the consumption of powdered infant formula that has been prepared with fluoridated water.3,22,25,35 Contributing to the risk of fluorosis are the consumption of food and beverages manufactured or processed in regions of community fluoridated water. Some of the bottled waters currently found in the market contain significant  fluoride concentrations.3,22,25,35 The advancing utilization of dietary fluoride supplements during the early years of life advances further the risk for fluorosis.2-3,6-7,31,35

In an attempt to mitigate these advancing dietary fluorides, based upon the body of literature recommendations have come forth to limit dietary fluorides, especially within those communities supplied with community fluoridated water.2,6,25,29,31,38 With this aim, public health organizations and dental associations have advocating improved fluoride delivery systems.6,23,31,38 In response to the body of literature, the Forum on Fluoridation 2002 advocated reducing the fluoride content within community fluoridated water supplies to between 0.6 to 0.8 ppm which is believed would reduce the fluorosis risk while not abatting the caries prevention advantages.3

Fluoride level in drinking water and osteosarcoma

There exists a biological pathway whereby fluoride may potentially contribute to the incidence rate of osteosarcoma. And this pathway would be at its most significant during periods of bone growth, especially in males. 99% of the aggregate of fluoride within the human body is located in the skeleton. Roughly 50% of daily ingested fluoride becomes  deposited  into calcified tissue, either bone or teeth.  Fluoride triggers cells to commence cell division, thus fluoride advances  the proliferation of osteoblasts exacerbated during periods of bone growth.  Within our youth population, bone structure actually permits greater adherence for the fluoride to exchange.  The metaphyseal regions of long bones, where long bone growth occurs, is a preferred location for the genesis of Osteosarcoma within our youth. Since the amount of fluoride in bone is dependent on the amount of fluoride ingested, and the quantity of intake is on average greater for males, males are at a higher risk.

This relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been examined in a relatively limited number of animal and human studies with confounding and conflicting results.

Blakely in an ecological analysis designed to cover the entire nation of Great Britain found no association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma or ES.  Bassin in a relatively small ( 103 cases aged under 20 years)  case-control study reports an increased osteosarcoma risk with fluoride in the drinking water for males and no significant risk for females. However, another case-control study utilizing the same dataset found no association. Two ecological studies from the United States and Ireland concluded no association between fluoridated drinking water and osteosarcoma. Both of these studies had weaknesses in their reporting of fluoride exposure.

Summary & Recommendations  
Fluoridation of drinking water was instituted as a major public health initiative to reduce dental caries in children and adults in the United States. The CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century (CDC,1999). Despite this, arguments against water fluoridation began shortly after the introduction of fluoride into the public water supply. These arguments arose from concerns of safety and control (Harding & O’Mullane, 2013).  
After the initiation of water fluoridation, early studies estimated a 50-70% reduction in dental caries due to fluoridation. This number eventually plateaued as access to bottled water and use of fluoride toothpaste became widespread (CDC, 1999).
This research review on water fluoridation was of interest given the controversial nature of the current recommendations and findings within the literature. The research conducted does exhibit trends of high incidences of dental fluorosis from higher levels of fluoride exposure through drinking water. It appears that research regarding dental fluorosis due to fluoride is more prevalent when compared to osteosarcomas, skeletal fluorosis, and fluoride. Perhaps this is because fluorosis is visible to the eye and therefore the link between fluoride and dental fluorosis was made earlier than the link between fluoride, skeletal fluorosis, and osteosarcomas.  In 2006 the National Research Council (NRC) was asked to reevaluate the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of fluoride in drinking water set forth by Environmental Protection Agency in 1986. The MCLG refers to the maximum contaminant level in naturally occurring fluoridation and is not the recommendation for artificially fluoridated water. The MCLG has been 4mg/L since 1986.  After the NRC reviewed collective evidence, comprised of studies from the early 1990s until 2006, the committee collectively determined that the MCLG of 4 mg/L of fluoride should be lowered as such exposure puts children at risk for severe dental fluorosis.
Future Research
Future research should focus on a number of areas regarding fluoridation of water in order to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of fluoride in drinking water. First, research should focus on longitudinal studies in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities and compare bone metabolism measurements and bone complications between the two. Calcitonin was reported by Chen et al. (2013) to be the most sensitive of bone metabolism indicators and may be of use in further research (Chen et al., 2013). Secondly, research should focus on exact levels of fluoridation that produce adverse effects such as dental fluorosis.  According to the CDC, studies done in the United States from 1979-1989 looking at the effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries reduction had tapered off to 8-37% (CDC, 1999). As noted above, the NRC’s research suggested that the MCLG of 4mg/L be lowered. Perhaps this is an argument to reduce the amount of fluoride artificially added to drinking supplies as to further reduce the risk for dental fluorosis (National Research Council, 2006).
Other research should focus on the cost of artificial fluoridation and the actual benefit. As mentioned above, the availability of bottled water and fluoride toothpaste has aided in the decrease of dental caries among populations. The research does argue however, that lower-income populations may have limited access to these resources and water fluoridation is a means of providing the benefits of fluoridation to these populations (CDC, 1999). Research of the risks and benefits of water fluoridation in a diverse group of communities should be undertaken. This will provide information about the reliance of lower-income communities on fluoridated water for dental protection.
The link between fluoride and osteosarcomas remains to be seen in the literature. Levy and Leclerc (2012) found that there was no definitive link between fluoride and osteosarcomas and similarly, Blakey et al. (2014) found there was no evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma. Contradicting these findings was the study done by Bassin et al. (2006), that links increased fluoride intake with increased incidences of osteosarcomas in males.  As mentioned by Blakey et al. (2014) the research done by Bassin et al. (2006) had a small sample size. Thus far, it seems that lack of participants has been a barrier to further research on this topic, but given the concerns for safety, it is imperative to continue researching the effects of fluoride on bone health and health in general.
        
References
Bassin, E.B., Wypij, D., Davis, R.B., & Mittleman, M.A. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure  in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 17 (4),              421-428.
Blakey, K., Feltbower, R. G., Parslow, R. C., James, P. W., Gómez Pozo, B., Stiller, C., . . .              McNally, R. J. (2014). Is fluoride a risk factor for bone cancer? small area analysis of             osteosarcoma and ewing sarcoma diagnosed among 0–49-year-olds in Great Britain,        1980–2005. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(1), 224-234.         doi:10.1093/ije/dyt259
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Community Water Fluoridation. Retrieved         from http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/index.htm
Chachra, D., Limeback, H., Willett, T. L., & Grynpas, M. D. (2010). The long-term effects of           water fluoridation on the human skeleton. Journal of Dental Research, 89(11), 1219        1223. doi:10.1177/0022034510376070
Chen, S., Li, B., Lin, S., Huang, Y., Zhao, X., Zhang, M., . . . Yu, S. (2013). Change of urinary        fluoride and bone metabolism indicators in the endemic fluorosis areas of southern China           after supplying low fluoride public water. Biomedical Central Public Health, 13(1), 1-10.             doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-156
Jones, G., Riley, M., Couper, D., & Dwyer, T. (2008). Water fluoridation, bone mass fracture: A  quantitative overview of the literature. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public   Health, 23(1), 34-40. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.1999.tb01202.x
Kakumanu, N., & Rao, S.D. (2013). Skeletal fluorosis due to excessive tea drinking. New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 1140. doi: 10.1056/NEJMicm1200995
Levy, M., & Leclerc, B. (2012). Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in        the continental United States among children and adolescents. Cancer Epidemiology, 36(2), e83-e88. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008
Levy, S. M., Warren, J. J., Phipps, K., Letuchy, E., Broffitt, B., Eichenberger-Gilmore, J., . . .           Pauley, C. A. (2014). Effects of life-long fluoride intake on bone measures of adolescents: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Dental Research. doi:10.1177/0022034514520708
Li, Y., Liang, C., Slemenda, C. W., Ji, R., Sun, S., Cao, J., . . . Johnston, C. C. (2001). Effect of   long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of  Bone and Mineral Research, 16(5), 932-939. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.5.932
National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s               standards. Washington D.C: The National Acadamies Press.
Odiyo, J., & Makungo, R. (2012). Fluoride concentrations in groundwater and impact on human  health in Siloam village, Limpopo province, South Africa. Water SA, 38(5), 731-736.                doi:10.4314/wsa.v38i5.12
Phipps, K.R., Orwoll, E.S., Mason, J.D., & Cauley, J.A. (2000). Community water fluoridation,   bone mineral density, and fractures: Prospective study of effects in older women. British                Medical Journal, 321 (7265), 860-864. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7265.860
Pizzo, G., Piscopo, M. R., Pizzo, I., & Giuliana, G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and         caries prevention: A critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations, 11(3), 189-93.               doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0111-6
Vestergaard, P., Jorgensen, N. R., Schwarz, P., & Mosekilde, L. (2008). Effects of treatment    with fluoride on bone mineral density and fracture risk - a meta-analysis. Osteoporosis             International, 19(3), 257-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.umb.edu/10.1007/s00198   007-0437-6
Wondwossen, F., Astrom, A.N., Bjorvatn, K., & Bardsen, A. (2004). The relationship between        dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with moderate and high-fluoride drinking water in ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 32, 337-344.

Appendix A
Evidence Table
Note: No Observational or Qualitative Studies were included in this analysis.
Clinical question/topic (generic PICO format): What are the effects of fluoride on dental and bone health?
P: Does fluoride improve or deteriorate bone dental and bone health?
I: Addition of fluoride in that drinking water.
C: Analyze data comparing the effects of fluoride on dental and bone health
O: Fluoride weakens teeth and bones
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria: Within the last 14 years, topics pertain to bone and dental health and/or caries and fluoride consumption. Exclusion criteria: Other health related problems related to fluoride consumption; other sources of fluoride other than water supply.
Keywords/search terms: Fluoride, dental caries, bone, health, fluoridated water
Databases Searched: CINAHL, ProQuest, EBSCO, PubMed
Experimental Studies
First Author/
year
Study Question
Study design/ intervention
Sample/Size Sampling method
Analysis
Significant findings
Kakumanu, (2013)




Serum fluoride of 0.43mg/L can lead to skeletal fluorosis.






Quantitative Studies
First Author/
year
Study Question
Study design (domain/tradition)
Sample/Size Sampling method/Setting
Analysis/
themes
Significant findings
Bassin, E. (2006)
What is the relationship between the level of fluoride in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma?
case-control design
103 cases under the age of 20 and 215 matched controls
exploratory analysis
an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females
Chachra, D. (2010)
The long-term effects of water fluoridation on the human skeleton.
Quantitative Longitudinal
92 femoral heads; 53 from patients in Toronto and 39 from Montreal Canada from SEP 1996-AUG 2000 who were undergoing total hip arthroplasty.  Median age of donors was 66 Y from Toronto and 70 Y from Montreal.
Epidemiological studies have failed to observe an effect of municipal fluoridated drinking water on bone.
1) The lack of a strong relationship between fluoride exposure and bone fluoride content.
2) Wide variables in properties makes it difficult to pinpoint fluoride-related effects.
3) Decades of studies have shown minimal evidence of effects of fluoride on bone and that fluoridated water affects adults with healthy bone.
Levy, S.M.
(2014)
Effects of life-long fluoride intake on bone measures of adolescents: A prospective cohort study
Longitudinal prospective cohort study
1382 cohort members from Iowa. Newborn to 15 yrs.
630 members received 1 or more bone density assessments,415 bone scans to age 15, and 358 completed accelerometry data. Overall, 358 members were included in the analysis.
Exploratory analysis
1) Variance in mineral density of bone was very low.
2) None of the weak associations with fluoride intakes was statistically significant.
3)The associations between fluoride intake and bone outcome measures remain weak.
4)
Jones, G. (2008)
1. Is water fluoridation associated with altered fracture risk (particularly of the hip) at a population level. 2. Are the differences between studies consistent with confounding or chance variations between studies.
Quantitative Meta-analysis
26 epidemiological studies collected from May 1996-November 1997 using Medline database. 5 excluded r/t no extractable data. 18 extractable data r/t fx; 10 r/t bone mass (7 had both). 10 Ecological; 11 cross-sectional; 3 cohort. Sample: 21 Studies
Fleiss Method; standard chi-squares (homogenecity) and random effects (heterogenicity); multi/univariate analysis
1. Water fluoridation has no evident effect on fracture risk.
2. Studies were of poor quality which authors identified; more rigorous studies needed to further evaluate effect of fluoride on health.
Phipps, K. (2000)
Does fluoridation influence bone mineral density and fractures in older women.
Multi-Centered Prospective Study
9704 white women >65 years old. Selected from 4 different areas in the U.S. by reviewing jury selection, registry of voters, motor vehicle records, membership records of health plans.
Chi Square tests, proportional hazard, logistical regression models; variance/covariance; multivariable models.
Continuous fluoride exposure 31% less hip fractures; 27% less vertebral fractures; increased wrist fractures/ decreased bone mineral density (not stat. significant)
Levy, M. (2012)
Is fluoride in the drinking water associated with the presence of osteosarcoma’s in children and adolescents?
Ecological study
Gathered from CDC Wonder Database of 5-19 year olds from 1999-2006 categorized by age group, state and sex.
Gamma distribution method, Poisson regression models, SAS statistical software, SEER statistical software
Fluoridated drinking water is not associated with an increased presence of osteosarcomas in children and adolescents
Blakey, K. (2014)
Is fluoride a risk factor for bone cancer?
Quantitative  ecological study
2566 persons with osteosarcoma; 1650 Ewing’s sarcoma aged 0-49 gathered from 1980-2005; Data gathered from 10 regional cancer registries from Great Britain.  
Negative  binomial regression with STATA version 12. Likelihood ration tests, 2-sided P values, sensitivity analyses; positive threshold effect, Akaike Information Criterion
No evidence to link levels of fluoride (artificial or natural) in the drinking water  to osteosarcoma/Ewing’s sarcoma in Great Britain
Li, Y. (2001)
Is there a link between levels of fluoridated water and overall/hip fractures in 6 Chinese communities
Randomized Clinical Trial
8266 males and females split into 6 groups of > or equal to 50 years old.  
Random recruitment in communities  with fluoride water levels from 0.25-7.97 who have lived in the same area for 25 years.
Multiple logistic regression; bivariate analysis, modified method of Taves, Chi squares, and T-tests.
Long-term exposure from drinking fluoridated water > or equal to 4.32ppm increases overall fracture risk. Levels 1-1.06ppm decrease overall fracture risk relative to no fluoride in the water, this finding was not noted however in hip fractures
Odiyo, J.O. (2012)
What are the effects of fluoride concentrations in groundwater in Siloam Village in African
Quantitative
150 Households (total 400 peope) and 189 school learners in a rural African village (Siloam)
None specified; Survey/Questionnaire  
87% households use fluoridated and 85% had mottled teeth; 50% 11-14 year old school learners had mottled teeth; 52.7% of households have 1-5 people in their household with mottled teeth. 91% knew of neighbors with mottled teeth
Chen, S. (2013)

Quantitative


Low doses urinary fluoride cause slight abnormalities of bone mineral density but at higher levels cause significant bone mineral density
Vestergaard, P. (2008)
1) Does fluoride treatment alone or in combination with
calcium, vitamin D or an antiresorptive drug increase
spine or hip BMD compared with calcium, vitamin D
or an antiresorptive drug?
2) Does fluoride treatment alone or in combination with
calcium, vitamin D or an antiresorptive drug reduce the
risk of vertebral or non-vertebral fractures compared
with calcium, vitamin D or an antiresorptive drug?
3) Were there differences in the effect of fluoride on BMD
or fracture risk that could be attributed to fluoride
formulation, dose or treatment duration?
4) What were the adverse effects of fluoride treatment?
Meta-analysis
25 random clinica trials from PubMed (1951-present), Embase (1974-present), and ISI (1945-present) narrowed from 2028 articles. Search terms: Fluoride AND bone mineral  OR fracture
Random effects model, t-tests, Chi squares, odds ratio, weighted mean difference, funnel plots, forest plots, regression model, Trim and Fill method, Jadad quality score, review manager 4.2.7.
Fluoride treatment increased spine/hip bone mineral denisty depending on treatment duration. No effects seen in risk of hip/spine fracture risk. Quality of bone during fluoride treatment is inferior. Fluoride anabolic effect  bone mineral decreases biomechanical competence of new formed bone
Wondwossen, F. (2004)
What is the relationship between caries and dental fluorosis in Ethiopian children living in Rift Valley areas known for endemic fluorosis?
Prospective Quantitative Design  
A census of all children of the resident study population aged 12–15 years was undertaken. A total of 306 children, 152 girls (mean age 13.5 years) and 154 boys (mean age 13.1 years), were included in the study. Informed consent was obtained from the children and their parents, as well as from local authorities.
Total of 306 children (12–15 years old), selected from areas with moderate (0.3–2.2 mg/l), or high (10–14 mg/l) fluoride concentration in the drinking water were interviewed and examined for caries and dental fluorosis. Scorings were recorded according to the DMF system, and the Thylstrup-Fejerskov (TF) Index.
A positive relationship between dental caries and dental fluorosis was observed across various tooth types, in both areas.






Literature Reviews
First Author/
year
Study Question
Study design (domain/tradition)
Sample/Size Sampling method/Setting
Analysis/
themes
Significant findings
National Research Council (2006)
Evaluating the effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water regarding teeth/bone health
Literature Reviews of studies regarding use of fluoride and its effects on dental/bone health



Pizzo,G.
(2007)
What is the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries?
Meta-
Analysis
Original articles and reviews published in English from 1/2001 to 6/2006. No mention as to how many. Bibliography references 38 articles
Themes:
a. systemic vs topical effect of fluoride
b. Impact of fluoride containing products
c. water fluoridation and socioeconomic dental health
d. Fluorosis: an emerging problem in fluoridated communities
Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.







No comments:

Post a Comment