adam

Since silicofluorides aren’t used in other coun-tries and are associated with a significant increase in the fre-quency of seven different diseases, stopping their use should be combined with screening and treating children for high body burdens of other toxins. As this suggestion indicates, Americans urgently need to focus on national health policy, can improve health at virtually no cost by ending silicofluoride use, and – as soon as possible – consider ways to increase public financing of medical care.

OBJECTIVES:
The “optimal” intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight (mg F/kg bw) but is based on limited scientific evidence. The purpose of this paper is to present longitudinal fluoride intake data for children free of dental fluorosis in the early-erupting permanent dentition and free of dental caries in both the primary and early-erupting permanent teeth as an estimate of optimal fluoride intake.

METHODS:
Data on fluoride ingestion were obtained from parents of 602 Iowa Fluoride Study children through periodic questionnaires at the ages of 6 weeks; 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 36 months; and then at 6-month intervals thereafter. Estimates of total fluoride intake at each time point were made by summing amounts from water, dentifrice, and supplements, as well as other foods and beverages made with, or containing, water. Caries data were obtained from examinations of children at ages 5 and 9 years, whereas fluorosis data were obtained from examinations of children only at age 9 years.

RESULTS:
The estimated mean daily fluoride intake for those children with no caries history and no fluorosis at age 9 years was at, or below, 0.05 mg F/kg bw for nearly all time points through the first 48 months of life, and this level declined thereafter. Children with caries had generally slightly less intakes, whereas those with fluorosis generally had slightly higher intakes.

CONCLUSIONS:
Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic.

MAIN RESULTS:
Seventy-four studies were included. For the 70 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 42,300 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 24% (95% confidence interval (CI), 21 to 28%; p<0.0001). This means that 1.6 children need to brush with a fluoride toothpaste (rather than a non-fluoride toothpaste) over three years to prevent one D(M)FS in populations with caries increment of 2.6 D(M)FS per year. In populations with caries increment of 1.1 D(M)FS per year, 3.7 children will need to use a fluoride toothpaste for three years to avoid one D(M)FS. There was clear heterogeneity, confirmed statistically (p<0.0001). The effect of fluoride toothpaste increased with higher baseline levels of D(M)FS, higher fluoride concentration, higher frequency of use, and supervised brushing, but was not influenced by exposure to water fluoridation. There is little information concerning the deciduous dentition or adverse effects (fluorosis).

REVIEWER’S CONCLUSIONS:
Supported by more than half a century of research, the benefits of fluoride toothpastes are firmly established. Taken together, the trials are of relatively high quality, and provide clear evidence that fluoride toothpastes are efficacious in preventing caries.

OBJECTIVES:
The biological effects of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements as used in clinical dentistry are described, and the literature reviewed on this topic.

METHODS:
Information on resin-modified glass-ionomers and on 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), the most damaging substance released by these materials, has been collected from over 50 published papers. These were mainly identified through Scopus.

RESULTS:
HEMA is known to be released from these materials and has a variety of damaging biological properties, ranging from pulpal inflammation to allergic contact dermatitis. These are therefore potential hazards from resin-modified glass-ionomers. However, clinical results with these materials that have been reported to date are generally positive.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:
Resin-modified glass-ionomers cannot be considered biocompatible to nearly the same extent as conventional glass-ionomers. Care needs to be taken with regard to their use in dentistry and, in particular, dental personnel may be at risk from adverse effects such as contact dermatitis and other immunological responses.