Fluoride and tooth decay [Split from Good news!!]

[Gavinicus]

Don't you get it? The word "toxin" means "chemical with a funny-sounding name". In fact, you can force a substance to cause cancer simply by giving it a funny-sounding name. ;)

My mother used to recall the fluoride scare. Besides being a communist plot and whatnot, one of the slogans against fluoridating water was: "it's a compound!"

[B_Sharp]

My mother used to recall the fluoride scare. Besides being a communist plot and whatnot, one of the slogans against fluoridating water was: "it's a compound!"Actually, flouride weakens bones internally but externally it can harden enamel, eg teeth.

So do you actually believe the Dentist's union, American Dental Association, gives a rat's ass about you.

Does the ADA promote flouride because:
A) It hardens enamel
b) It damages bones and teeth by making them more brittle

[Aria]

Actually, flouride weakens bones internally but externally it can harden enamel, eg teeth.

So do you actually believe the Dentist's union, American Dental Association, gives a rat's ass about you.

Does the ADA promote flouride because:
A) It hardens enamel
b) It damages bones and teeth by making them more brittle

Curious as to evidence of this.

[ohwilleke]

Actually, flouride weakens bones internally but externally it can harden enamel, eg teeth.

So do you actually believe the Dentist's union, American Dental Association, gives a rat's ass about you.

Does the ADA promote flouride because:
A) It hardens enamel
b) It damages bones and teeth by making them more brittle

this clearly explains why tooth decay incidence has plummeted and dental health has surged in places with floridated water and why exclusive bottled water consumption is associated with tooth decay.

[B_Sharp]

why exclusive bottled water consumption is associated with tooth decay.[/snark]Wrong. Confounding. Those lousy tooth decay silver fillings in your mouth are a symptom that your parents cared little about your health while growing up.

[snark]this clearly explains why tooth decay incidence has plummeted and dental health has surged in places with floridated waterWrong again.

"A brief review of a state-by-state CDC score card of "optimally fluoridated" communities reveals just the opposite.

"Predictably, and in keeping with research that reveals fluoride causes gum disease, the two states with the worst edentulous problems in the country - Kentucky and West Virginia - were 96% and 87% "optimally fluoridated" in 2000. In fact, Kentucky, which was mentioned earlier above as also having twice the rate of cavities in toddlers as the national average, was actually 100% fluoridated in 1992.

"Among the other top five states of now-toothless-Americans, Maine was 75% fluoridated, Arkansas was about 60% fluoridated and over 53% of Louisiana's residents were being "optimally fluoridated" via hazmat waste in their drinking water. (68)

re: book Fluoride: The Battle of Darkness and Light

[Dark Knight Bob]

Tooth decay is caused by excess sugar in your diet. Flouride merely reduces it's effects. It does not magically remove the risk.

If you removed artificially introduced sugar from your diet you wouldn't get tooth decay.

[B_Sharp]

If you removed artificially introduced sugar from your diet you wouldn't get tooth decay.Not true. It is better to re-phrase and correctly say that "added sugar is a major risk for tooth decay".

However, remove excess sugar and you still get tooth decay if:

You eat a ton of meat. Your stomach backs up. Creates acid and bacteria.
Poor exercise.
Eat a lot of baked goods (sugarless). The human body is not designed to overdose on mostly wheat products.

I read once that with good habits, a person need NOT even brush or NOT floss their teeth. EVER! The human body did not evolve with a toothbrush.

My dentist told me that I will keep my teeth until a ripe old age. I appreciate his candor. My sibling however, has gum disease problems. He says it is genetic. I constantly tell him no that tooth decay prevention is HABITS. My dentist is my proof. Knock on wood.

[Dark Knight Bob]

I read once that with good habits, a person need NOT even brush or NOT floss their teeth. EVER! The human body did not evolve with a toothbrush.

Ok that's a bit more of an accurate statement. But sugar is in itself the major cause.

Those other reasons were unstated assumptions because poor health is generally going to lead to more pressing problems than tooth decay.

[ohwilleke]

Examples of proof of benefits of Floride:

Floridation produces 60% fewer people needing dental treatment:
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/dental/flstudy.pdf

Floridation reduces cavities by 50-60%; forty years of research show no harmful side effects:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ITEMIDCHAR=75EDE10D-1BC8-4B16-A027-F9579A2DB22&methodnameCHAR=&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=7FC33F8B-020D-4919-ACD3-A33A69782BB&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=itemP

Helps teeth of older people too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/260862.stm

Main study with contrary argument: http://www.slweb.org/NIDR.html (pre-dates Scientific American study above by many years).

Benefits have declined from 50-60% to 20%-40% due to wider use of Flouride in other products: http://www.volusiahealth.com/eh/PDF/flouride.pdf

14 year before and after study shows 60% benefit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2638956&dopt=Abstract

Canadian metastudy, ruled out many health risks, finds health benefits many in lower income children: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/fluoridation/fluor.pdf

Letter to editor on point: http://www.cda.org/public/fluori.html

Summary of 2001 CDC recommendation (for flouridation): http://www.adha.org/profissues/cdc_fluoride_guidelines.htm

[repoman]

too much fluoride in the body can cause the skeletal bones to be too rigid and more prone to fracture. It can come by fluoridation of water or by drinking too much tea. For some reason tea leaves concentrate fluoride very much. If I recall correctly, teas can have like 10x more fluoride than is allowed in drinking water. I don't think that the fluoride can be taken out of tea.

Look it up if you like, I'm too lazy now...

[Dark Knight Bob]

too much fluoride in the body can cause the skeletal bones to be too rigid and more prone to fracture.

Define how much fluride is required for this to happen. Also define whether this amount is in one dose or can be reliably accepted as a cumalative effect

Produce a reliable source stating how much flruide is actually in water/toothpaste etc. and the average amount ingested by humans.

[ohwilleke]

Define how much fluride is required for this to happen. Also define whether this amount is in one dose or can be reliably accepted as a cumalative effect

Produce a reliable source stating how much flruide is actually in water/toothpaste etc. and the average amount ingested by humans.

The Canadian study about states you need 10mg+ per day for ten years to have a negative effect. The typically recommended amount is 0.6-0.8 mg/liter. 8 liters a day is in theory recommended, but few people actually drink that much. The Canadian study also states that skeletal problems are not observed in communities with standard flouride concentrations.

[MortalWombat]

So do you actually believe the Dentist's union, American Dental Association, gives a rat's ass about you.

Does the ADA promote flouride because:
A) It hardens enamel
b) It damages bones and teeth by making them more brittle
So I guess various international health agencies such as the American Dietetic Association (http://www.eatright.org/Public/Other/index_adap1000.cfm), the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/cdoe319to321/en/), the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/fl-caries.htm), the Canadian Paediatric Society (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/healthy/fluoride.htm), the National Institutes of Health (http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/HealthInformation/OralHealthInformationIndex/Fluoride/WaterFluoridation.htm), and the British Medical Association (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Water+fluoridation) are all in league the ADA to promote this conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

[BioBeing]

Actually, flouride weakens bones internally but externally it can harden enamel, eg teeth.

Drinking water fluoridation and bone
Allolio B, Lehmann R
EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & DIABETES 107 (1): 12-20 1999

Abstract:
Drinking water fluoridation has an established role in the prevention of dental caries, but may also positively or negatively affect bone. In bone fluoride is incorporated into hydroxylapatite to form the less soluble fluoroapatite. In higher concentrations fluoride stimulates osteoblast activity leading to an increase in cancellous bone mass. As optimal drinking water fluoridation (1 mg/l) is widely used, it is of great interest, whether long-term exposition to artificial water fluoridation has any impact on bone strength, bone mass, and - most importantly - fracture rate.

Animal studies suggest a biphasic pattern of the effect of drinking water fluoridation on bone strength with a peak strength at a bone fluoride content of 1200 ppm followed by a decline at higher concentrations eventually leading to impaired bone quality. These changes are not paralleled by changes in bone mass suggesting that fluoride concentrations remain below the threshold level required: for activation of osteoblast activity. Accordingly, in most epidemiological studies in humans bone mass was not altered by optimal drinking water fluoridation. In contrast. studies on the effect on hip fracture rate gave conflicting results ranging from an increased fracture incidence to no effect, and to a decreased fracture rate. As only ecological studies have been performed, they may be biased by unknown confounding factors - the so-called ecological fallacy. However, the combined results of these studies indicate that any increase or decrease in fracture rate is likely to be small. It has been calculated that appropriately designed cohort studies to solve the problem require a sample size of >400000 subjects. Such studies will not be performed in the foreseeable future. Future investigations in humans should, therefore, concentrate on the effect of long-term drinking water fluoridation on bone fluoride content and bone strength.

Yes: fluoride can effect bone strength.

No: there is no evidence that at normal concentrations it does so.

[BioBeing]

Another one...

Aust Dent J. 2001 Jun;46(2):80-7; quiz 143.

Water fluoridation, osteoporosis, fractures--recent developments.

Demos LL, Kazda H, Cicuttini FM, Sinclair MI, Fairley CK.

Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Medical School.

BACKGROUND: Optimal (1ppm) water fluoridation is seen as the most socially equitable way to prevent dental caries, however concerns about the safety of fluoridation are periodically raised. METHODS: Research on effects on bone published since the 1991 National Health and Medical Research Council report on water fluoridation was reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified. Adverse effects in animal feeding studies were only seen at doses much greater than those currently used in artificial water fluoridation. The majority of animal studies showed no effect or a beneficial effect of low fluoride doses. The results of ecological studies were conflicting. One of the two cohort studies showed an increase in fracture incidence at fluoride levels four times greater than optimal water fluoridation and the other showed no effect after 20 years' optimal fluoridation. The cross-sectional studies showed a favourable effect on bone mineral density. The clinical trials predominantly showed increased bone density in several sites associated with fluoride treatment of 9-22.6mg fluoride per day for one-four years. CONCLUSION: These studies provide a substantial body of evidence that fluoride at up to 1ppm does not have an adverse effect on bone strength, bone mineral density or fracture incidence.

Not only that, fluoride can be used to treat osteoperosis - it increases bone density!

Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 1998 Jun;27(2):441-52.

The role of fluoride in the prevention of osteoporosis.

Kleerekoper M.

Department of Internal Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.

Osteoporosis defined as low bone mass and increased susceptibility to fracture is a reflection of the sum of peak bone mass and any bone that has been lost once peak mass has been attained. Several strategies have been applied to optimize peak bone mass and to prevent bone loss. Fluoride has greatest potential as a therapy for osteoporosis once bone has been lost. It has been demonstrated both experimentally and clinically to stimulate bone formation directly and to increase bone mass in patients who already have osteoporosis. Several bone formation/stimulation therapies are under development, and some of these have reached the stage of clinical trial. None of these therapies has been as extensively studied as fluoride, and none is sufficiently advanced in development to be clinically available in the next 3 to 5 years. Fluoride therapy for osteoporosis is already performed in many countries, and approval for use in osteoporosis in the United States is pending. The first clinical trials of NaF therapy for osteoporosis were reported by Rich and Ensinck in 1961. Since then, hundreds of reports on the successes and failures of fluoride therapy have appeared in the literature. At first glance, it seems disappointing and inexplicable that, after 40 years of research, fluoride is still considered an experimental drug in the United States. One plausible explanation is that much of the early research on this drug was suboptimal, including the author's contributions. Fluoride as a naturally occurring element is difficult to patent, and this has kept major pharmaceutical companies from investing heavily in fluoride therapy despite its obvious potential. As a result, pharmacologic and pharmacokinetics studies of fluoride are limited in scope, as are phase I and phase II human toxicology and dose-finding studies. Most early studies of large doses of plain NaF were unable to demonstrate a consistent effect on fracture rate despite a consistent and dramatic effect on bone density. Once this became obvious and as new technologies for measuring bone density became available, it became equally clear that future clinical trials would have to be performed using different formulations of fluoride and lower doses. This approach has not resulted in uniformly positive clinical trials, and one must look elsewhere for answers. The most compelling explanation is that the trials have included patients with different severity of disease, suggesting that there is point in the bone loss spectrum at which even a potent bone-stimulating agent such as fluoride is ineffective. This possibility should provoke a reappraisal of the earlier negative studies: was the failure a result of the drug or of patient selection? The answer to this question is crucial, because these failures have cast a long shadow over the safety of fluoride and are contributing more to the absence of this drug from the pharmacopoeia than any other factor.

[BioBeing]

I read once that with good habits, a person need NOT even brush or NOT floss their teeth. EVER! The human body did not evolve with a toothbrush.
True - we did not evolve with toothbrushes. However, we probably also died of childbirth or bacterial infection long before we lost all of our teeth.

My dentist told me that I will keep my teeth until a ripe old age. I appreciate his candor. My sibling however, has gum disease problems. He says it is genetic. I constantly tell him no that tooth decay prevention is HABITS. My dentist is my proof. Knock on wood.
Nitpick - that is not candor. Candor would be telling you a hard to face truth such as you ARE about to lose all you teeth.

On the face of it, I would imagine that you and your sibling were brought up with similar habits, if you lived in the same household. Your sibling could simply be susceptible to gum disease. My sister needed her teeth painting with enamel at a young age - I have very strong teeth. If anything my habits are worse than hers, so my anecdote trumps yours ;)

[Plognark]

True - we did not evolve with toothbrushes. However, we probably also died of childbirth or bacterial infection long before we lost all of our teeth.


yeah, tooth decay isn't a big evolutionary survival pressure when you're probably going to kick the bucket well before age 40.

Note that most people can get by pretty well without any dental care at all until that point. Once you pass thirty five, if you've had severe cavities or other issues, well, it'll be time for dentures soon.

No big deal if your species typically doesn't live that long.

[Ockhamite]

In fact, Kentucky, which was mentioned earlier above as also having twice the rate of cavities in toddlers as the national average, was actually 100% fluoridated in 1992.
This doesn't seem reasonable. Even now, much of rural KY does not have access to fluoridated water. They rely on personal water wells, which would preclude flouridation. I would guess less than half the population in this and adjacent counties have fluoridated water.

[Major Billy]

Wrong. Confounding. Wrong again.You gotta love this post. B_Sharp tells us that floridated water does not reduce tooth decay by sighting these states:

Kentucky
West Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana

[FreedomsPaladin]

I read once that with good habits, a person need NOT even brush or NOT floss their teeth. EVER! The human body did not evolve with a toothbrush.The human body didn't evolve to be flawless in any way. It evolved to survive long enough to reproduce. If by that time you have horrible teeth, well, so long as it doesn't kill you until you've ensured the survival of your offspring... And if it does kill you before you reproduce, then, well, it at least doesn't get passed on to the next generation. Unlike today where as long as it can be controlled by brushing, it can indeed be passed on.

My dentist told me that I will keep my teeth until a ripe old age. I appreciate his candor. My sibling however, has gum disease problems. He says it is genetic. I constantly tell him no that tooth decay prevention is HABITS. My dentist is my proof. Knock on wood.Dental health is indeed largely a matter of habit. But there can be some things you're born with (I don't know if it's genetics or some other congenital factor) that can affect it, too. Some of my fillings are due to poor dental hygiene habits during my youth. Others, according to my dentist, are because I have unusually deep grooves in my molars that normal at-home hygiene simply can't thoroughly clean. My teeth would be better if I'd always had the meticulous hygiene habits I have now, but those habits probably wouldn't be enough to keep my groovy teeth filling-free.

And just because I can't resist using such a topical smiley... :D :D :D