The Cochrane review did not look at the effect of community water fluoridation (CWF) on dental fluorosis. It simply reviewed data on the prevalence of dental fluorosis at different fluoride drinking water concentrations – up to 7.6 ppm which is well outside the optimum concentration used for CWF.
This is strange for a review specifically about CWF. Strictly speaking, as it stands this section should have been a separate review on dental fluorosis itself. However, this review did calculate a probable dental fluorosis prevalence at 0.7 ppm (the usual concentration used in CWF) which is misleading because it can be misinterpreted as due completely to CWF when it isn’t. And, of course, anti-fluoridation propagandists have cherry-picked and misinterpreted this.
Confusing language
I think is was a serious mistake for the reviewers to include this section in a review on CWF as this can imply the calculated prevalences quoted are caused by CWF. They aren’t.
Strictly, their calculations were reported correctly in the abstract:
“There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level.”
And also in the Plain Language Summary:
“The researchers calculated that, in areas with a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm in the water, approximately 12% of the people evaluated had fluorosis that could cause concern about their appearance.”
However, in their blog post on the review (see “Little contemporary evidence to evaluate effectiveness of fluoride in the water”) they inappropriately claim:
“There is an association between fluoridated water and dental fluorosis.”
Quite wrong – the association was with fluoride concentration (and most studies were of natural fluoride levels) – not with CWF.
They also use the term “water fluoridation” incorrectly in their comment on other possible harm from fluoride:
“Five studies that reported on dental fluorosis also presented data on the association of water fluoridation with skeletal fluorosis (Chen 1993; Jolly 1971; Wang 2012), bone fracture (Alarcon-Herrera 2001), and skeletal maturity (Wenzel 1982), in participants between the ages of six and over 66 years. Four of the studies included a total of 596,410 participants (Alarcon-Herrera 2001; Chen 1993; Wang 2012; Wenzel 1982), and fluoride concentration in all four studies ranged from less than 0.2 ppm to 14 ppm.”
Their use of the term “water fluoridation” to cover natural fluoride concentrations up to 14 ppm is irresponsible and misleading.
What the review did on dental fluorosis
It simply attempted to find a quantitative relationship between “fluoride level” (concentrations of naturally derived fluoride in drinking water) and dental fluorosis prevalence. It did this for all grades of dental fluorosis from “questionable” to “severe” (see figure above for illustrations fo the different grades). It also did this for “dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern” (which they arbitrarily defined as the mild, moderate and severe forms – they acknowledge inclusion of “mild” forms here is debatable). The figure below gives an idea of the data they were working with.
Using this data they produced tables of the probability of any forms of dental fluorosis, and of dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern at fluoride concentrations from 0.1 to 4 ppm. In the figures below I have converted their probability values to a calculated prevalence of dental fluorosis at concentrations up to 0.7 ppm.
As you can see from these figures the calculated prevalence of dental fluorosis at “fluoride exposures” less than the 0.7 ppm is only slightly less that at the 0.7 ppm used in CWF. So it is very misleading to interpret the review’s statement below as indicating anything about CWF:
“The researchers calculated that, in areas with a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm in the water, approximately 12% of the people evaluated had fluorosis that could cause concern about their appearance.”
Why should the review have considered differences between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas for its conclusions about tooth decay – but ignore the differences between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas in its consideration of dental fluorosis?
Estimating possible effect of CWF on dental fluorosis
In Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review I estimated what the possible effects of CWF is from the calculated probabilities in the Cochrane review. I am surprised the reviewers do not do this themselves as their review was meant to be about CWF and not natural fluoride levels in general.
At 0.7 ppm (the usual concentration for CWF), the calculated prevalence of all forms of dental fluorosis is 40%. But to calculate the prevalence due to CWF we must subtract the prevalence for non-fluoridated water. So dental fluorosis due to CWF would be 40% – 33% = 7 % of people (using the review’s concentration for non-fluoridated water of 0.4 ppm) or 40% – 30% = 10 % of people (using a more realistic concentration of 0.2 ppm).
Similarly, if we consider only those forms of dental fluorosis the review considers of “aesthetic concern,” then calculated prevalence due to CWF amounts to only 12% – 10% = 2% of people (using the reviews definition of non-fluoridated) or 12% – 9% = 3% of people using a more realistic concentration of 0.2 ppm for non-fluoridated.
Defining “dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern”
The milder forms of dental fluorosis are usually judged positive from the point of view of the quality of life. That is why the review also considered dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern – which they define as the severe, moderate and mild forms of dental fluorosis. But, their inclusion of mild forms here is questionable and they acknowledge that:
“Within the context of this review dental fluorosis is referred to as an ’adverse effect’. However, it should be acknowledged that moderate fluorosis may be considered an ’unwanted effect’ rather than an adverse effect. In addition, mild fluorosis may not even be considered an unwanted effect.”
It is not surprising (considering the data in the figures above) that surveys usually find no changes in the severe and medium forms of dental fluorosis (usually considered of “aesthetic concern”) due to CWF.
I think the Cochrane reviewers were irresponsible to quote calculations which did not include the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. This has enabled anti-fluoridation propagandists to use the authority of the Cochrane name to imply, as they often do, that CWF causes a dental fluorosis prevalence of 40%!
Conclusions
The review section on dental fluorosis should not be read as information on the effects of CWF – although the presented data can be used to calculate possible effects. These calculations confirm findings of published surveys that CWF has no effect of the forms of dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern.
However, the conclusions presented in this section of the review are open to misrepresentation and distortion just as they are with the reviews comments on “bias” and poor quality of research (see Cochrane fluoridation review. II: “Biased” and poor quality research) and their selection criteria (see Cochrane fluoridation review. I: Most research ignored). Misrepresentation and distortion of the review are already happening. Anti-fluoridation activists are heavily promoting this review, together with their distortions and misrepresentations, opportunistically using the Cochrane name to give “authority.”
Sensible readers will not rely on such misrepresentation or brief media reports. Nor will they rely on the Abstract or Plain Language Summary – which have problems. They will read the whole document – critically and intelligently. This is the only way to find out what the true content of this review is.
See also:
Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review
Cochrane fluoridation review. I: Most research ignored
Cochrane fluoridation review. II: “Biased” and poor quality research
Similar articles