adam

The overconsumption of toothpaste has negative consequences, particularly for children. This study’s objectives were to describe misleading marketing strategies used in selling children’s fluoridated toothpaste and identify warning label characteristics. Two researchers independently coded the packaging from 26 over-the-counter toothpastes that are specifically marketed for children. Aggressive marketing strategies targeting children were identified: every toothpaste in this sample displayed at least 1 children’s animated character, 50% had at least 1 picture of a food item, 92.3% stated they were flavored and 26.9% depicted a full swirl of toothpaste, directly contradicting dentist recommendations for young children. Further, on most toothpaste tubes, warnings regarding fluoride overconsumption for young children were only listed on the back and in very small font. Misleading marketing strategies are regularly used in selling children’s toothpaste as if it is a food product, while warnings regarding overconsumption among youth are minimized. Dental hygienists are in an important position to help parents of young children implement safe oral care practices.

BACKGROUND:
Fluoride is delivered to the teeth systemically or topically to aid in the prevention of dental caries. Systemic fluoride from ingested sources is in blood serum and can be deposited only in teeth that are forming in children. Topical fluoride is from sources such as community water, processed foods, beverages, toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, foams, and varnishes. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) have proposed changes in their long standing recommendations for the amount of fluoride in community drinking water in response to concerns about an increasing incidence of dental fluorosis in children. Current research is focused on the development of strategies to improve fluoride efficacy. The purpose of this update is to inform the reader about new research and policies related to the use of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries.

METHODS:
Reviews of the current research and recent evidence based systematic reviews on the topics of fluoride are presented. Topics discussed include: updates on community water fluoridation research and policies; available fluoride in dentifrices; fluoride varnish compositions, use, and recommendations; and other fluoride containing dental products. This update provides insights into current research and discusses proposed policy changes for the use of fluoride for the prevention of dental caries.

CONCLUSIONS:
The dental profession is adjusting their recommendations for fluoride use based on current observations of the halo effect and subsequent outcomes. The research community is focused on improving the efficacy of fluoride therapies thus reducing dental caries and lowering the amount of fluoride required for efficacy.

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was performed in 6- to 7-yr-old schoolchildren to evaluate, in a 30-mo period, whether the caries increment on the distal surface of the second primary molars adjacent to permanent first molars sealed with fluoride release compounds would be lower with respect to those adjacent to permanent first molars sealed with a nonfluoridated sealant. In sum, 2,776 subjects were enrolled and randomly divided into 3 groups receiving sealants on sound first molars: high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC group); resin-based sealant with fluoride (fluoride-RB group); and a resin-based sealant without fluoride (RB group). Caries (D1 – D3 level) was recorded on the distal surface of the second primary molar, considered the unit of analysis including only sound surfaces at the baseline. At baseline, no differences in caries prevalence were recorded in the 3 groups regarding the considered surfaces. At follow-up, the prevalence of an affected unit of analysis was statistically lower (p = .03) in the GIC and fluoride-RB groups (p = .04). In the GIC group, fewer new caries were observed in the unit of analysis respect to the other 2 groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.50, 0.86; p < .01) for GIC vs. RB and 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.89; p = .005) for fluoride-RB vs. RB [Corrected]. Caries incidence was significantly associated with low socioeconomic status (IRR = 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 1.42; p = .05). Dental sealant high-viscosity GIC and fluoride-RB demonstrated protection against dental caries, and there was evidence that these materials afforded additional protection for the tooth nearest to the sealed tooth (clinical trial registration NCT01588210).