Almost every one of us in this room have probably experienced having toothaches caused by tooth caries and cavities. If you have, then you would know the excruciating pain and the interference that a toothache can significantly impact one’s day to day activity. In fact, according to the National Children's Oral Health Foundation a large proportion of American youths have dental problems (National Children's Oral Health Foundation, 2014). In fact, half the population of children in their pre-adolescent age has tooth caries. This can be an alarming statistics despite the fact that tooth carries are not exactly that serious as far mortality or morbidity is concerned. Nevertheless, it is alarming because of the fact that a simple toothache could compromise one’s productivity and efficiency. This is the reason it has been imperative that solutions are provided for this issue.
While many dental hygienist and oral experts suggests the use of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash, the possibility of simply introducing fluoride in the water supply was proposed more economical and efficient considering that consumers no longer have to individually include it in their grocery list. However, while there are seemingly obvious advantage to this proposal, there are also studies suggesting that this can backfire and pose significant health risks.
In the selected articles, these points had been perfectly highlighted. For example, in 2007 it was emphasized that since many health authorities had been advocating the use of fluoride in dental care products then introducing fluorine into the municipal water supply in the form of sodium fluoride in order to improve cavity protection is the most effective way (Armfield). This is because there is no need to impose it to every single consumer as it has already been provided in the water supply. Compliance, therefore, is mandatory. On the other hand, one cannot discredit the result of a study conducted in 2000 and 2012 regarding the health risk associated with this proposal. The risk included loss of IQ points in children, or even cancer (Levy & Leclerc 2012; Lu, Sun, Wu, Wang, Lu, & Liu, 2000).
Carefully weighing the odds, it is found that while there has not been any conclusive case to be identified with the associated risks, it is better to subject the recommendation of water fluoridation under careful and extensive research to determine exactly the effect that it has for the public. Personally, it is my belief that the best way to resolve the problem on oral dental health is infusing a good dental hygiene. The proposal could potential save the public money and is considered efficient because the gradient for teeth protection is already infused in the water supply if the consequence will be grave then we can just dispense the advantages. In addition, it still has to do with the right health behavior. Even if the gradient is infused in the water supply of the public does not practice brushing their teeth, flossing and regular dental check-up, then the proposal won’t do any good.
References
Armfield, J. M. (2007). When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of anti-fluoridations literature. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4(1), 25.
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:10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008
Lu, Y., Sun, Z. R., Wu, L. N., Wang, X., Lu, W., & Liu, S. S. (2000). Effect of high-fluorine water on intelligence in children. Fluorine, 33(2), 74-78.
National Children's Oral Health Foundation. (2014, November 30). Dental Resources: National Children's Oral Health Foundation. Retrieved from National Children's Oral Health Foundation Website: http://www.1800dentist.com/the-national-childrens-oral-health-foundation/
