water fluoridation research paper

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Systematic review of...

Systematic review of water fluoridation

• Related content
• Peer review
• Marian S McDonagh ( msm7{at}york.ac.uk ) , research fellow a ,
• Penny F Whiting , research fellow a ,
• Paul M Wilson , research fellow a ,
• Alex J Sutton , lecturer in medical statistics c ,
• Ivor Chestnutt , senior lecturer b ,
• Jan Cooper , research fellow b ,
• Kate Misso , information officer a ,
• Matthew Bradley , research fellow a ,
• Elizabeth Treasure , professor b ,
• Jos Kleijnen , professor a
• a NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD
• b Dental Public Health Unit, Dental School, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XY,
• c Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP
• Correspondence to: M McDonagh
• Accepted 12 September 2000

Objective: To review the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water.

Design: Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched; further information requested from authors. Inclusion criteria were a predefined hierarchy of evidence and objectives. Study validity was assessed with checklists. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data, and assessed validity.

Main outcome measures: Decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth. Proportion of children without caries. Measure of effect was the difference in change in prevalence of caries from baseline to final examination in fluoridated compared with control areas. For potential adverse effects, all outcomes reported were used.

Results: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.

Conclusions: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.

Editorial by Hausen

Introduction

In the white paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation , the UK government highlighted the commonly held belief that there is strong evidence that water fluoridation improves and considerably reduces inequality in dental health. 1 The government also acknowledged that “the extensive research linking water fluoridation to improved dental health was mostly undertaken a few years ago,” and as a result this study was commissioned to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of the public water supply.

We focused on the two main objectives: the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of caries and whether fluoridation has negative effects. The full report is available elsewhere. 2

Search strategy

We searched 25 specialist databases, including Medline, Embase, TOXLINE, and Current Contents (Science Citation Index) from inception of the database to February 2000. In addition, we hand searched Index Medicus (1945-63) and Excerpta Medica (1955-73). Further searches included the world wide web and bibliographies of all included studies. We sought additional references from individuals and organisations through a dedicated web site for this review ( www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm includes the full report) and through members of a specifically designated advisory panel. Published and unpublished studies in any language were included. Full details of the search strategy are reported elsewhere. 2

Inclusion criteria

We applied two types of inclusion criteria. The first was the level of evidence, based on the risk of bias. Studies were classified into the levels of evidence. Evidence rated below level B (moderate quality evidence, moderate risk of bias) was not considered in the evaluation of efficacy. In the assessment of safety all levels of evidence were considered. If a study met only one or two of three criteria for a given level of evidence, it was assigned the next level down. Details of both types of inclusion criteria can be found on the BMJ ‘s website.

Data extraction and assessment of study quality

Inclusion criteria were assessed independently by at least two reviewers. Extraction of data from studies and assessment of validity was independently performed by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. We assessed study validity formally using a published checklist modified for this review. 3 Each item on the checklist was given one point, with a total of eight points possible for all study designs except case-control studies, which could attain a total of nine points. 2

Outcome measures

Studies that estimated the effect of fluoridation on caries investigated two main outcomes at baseline and at the final examination. These were decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth and the proportion of children without caries. The measure of effect used for the analysis was the difference of the change in prevalence of caries from baseline to the final examination in the fluoridated area compared with the control area in children of the same age.

Change in proportion (%) of children without caries in fluoridated compared with non-fluoridated areas (mean difference and 95% confidence interval)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Change in decayed, missing, and filled teeth for primary/permanent teeth (mean difference and 95% confidence interval)

To allow investigation of the effect of baseline levels of caries, we took the outcome measure from the final survey data for the meta-regressions of caries studies. The outcomes used were the data on effect size (mean difference) for decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth and the data on difference in risk for the proportion of children without caries. This was done because correlation between the mean difference of the change in incidence of caries and baseline caries may lead to a spurious association. The median risk difference was used to calculate the number needed to treat for the proportion of children without caries.

Several indices are used to classify enamel opacities, including fluorosis. Dental fluorosis was defined here as any score other than normal on each index used. As the importance of a fluorosis score at the lowest level of each index is debatable, a second method was selected. This method describes the number of people who have dental fluorosis that may cause “aesthetic concern to the patient.” The level at which fluorosis was judged to cause aesthetic concern was taken from a survey of 12 year old children in the United Kingdom w10 and corresponded to a tooth surface index of fluorosis score of two or more, a Thylstrup and Fejerskov index score of three or more, or Dean's classification of “mild” or worse. Studies that used other indices could not be included in this analysis. Full details of indices can be found elsewhere. 2

Where the data were in a suitable format we plotted measures of effect and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was investigated by visual examination of plots and statistically with the Q statistic. 4 If we found significant heterogeneity we conducted meta-regression. Random effects models were adopted throughout to combine study results. 5 Meta-regression was used to explore the influence of study characteristics on outcome in an attempt to try to explain any heterogeneity between studies. 4 Stata version 6.0 (Stata Corporation, US) was used for this analysis. 6

We used multi-level regression analysis to combine studies and investigate the association of water fluoride concentration with the prevalence of dental fluorosis (the analysis was conducted separately for all fluorosis and fluorosis of aesthetic concern) and used a multilevel model to combine studies. Each area with a different fluoride concentration under observation within a study was included separately in the model. The log (odds) of having fluorosis was modelled as a function of fluoride concentration. The analysis was carried out with the MIXED procedure within SAS (SAS Institute, US). Full details of methods used in the analyses, including all factors investigated in meta-regressions can be found elsewhere. 2

We included 214 studies; none was of evidence level A (high quality, bias unlikely). The study designs used included 45 controlled before-after studies, 102 cross sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies, and seven case-control studies. Summaries of individual study designs and full details on findings are available elsewhere. 2

Positive effects

Twenty six studies of the effect of water fluoridation on dental caries met the inclusion criteria. All but three of the studies included were controlled before-after studies. Of the three remaining, two used prospective cohort designs and the other a retrospective cohort design. The controlled before-after studies assessed different groups of children of the same age (12 years) at the baseline (before fluoridation) and final (after fluoridation) surveys. All studies were of evidence level B (moderate), and the mean validity score was 5 (range 3.5 to 6.8) out of 8.

Figures 1 and 2 show estimates of the effect of fluoridation on the change in decayed, missing, and filled teeth and on the change in children without caries compared with control children for studies in which fluoridation was initiated after the baseline survey. w1-9 Individual studies contributed more than one age group to the results. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies (P<0.001).

The range (median) of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%; interquartile range 5.05-22.1%). In the fluoridated areas there was a significant increase in the proportion of children without caries in 19 of 30 analyses. Only one analysis found a significant decrease in the proportion of children without caries in the fluoridated area. We estimate that that a median of six people would need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be free from caries (interquartile range of the distribution of number needed to treat was 4 to 9 people).

Fifteen of 16 analyses found a significantly greater mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth in the fluoridated areas than the non-fluoridated areas (fig 2 ). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5-4.4 (2.25) teeth (interquartile range 1.28-3.63 teeth).

Meta-regression showed that the proportion of children without caries at baseline, the setting, and the validity score show a significant association with the difference in risk in the proportion of children without caries. A table of the results of the meta-regression can be found on the BMJ 's website. Baseline decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth, age, setting, and duration of study show a significant association with the mean difference in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth.

Negative effects

A total of 175 included studies examined possible negative effects of water fluoridation.

Dental fluorosis

We included 88 studies of dental fluorosis. These were largely cross sectional designs, with only four controlled before-after designs. The mean (range) validity score for fluorosis was only 2.8 (1.3-5.8) out of 8. All of the studies were of evidence level C (lowest quality), except one level B study. A full list of citations is available elsewhere. 2

Regression analysis showed a significant dose-response relation for both methods of measuring the prevalence of fluorosis (figs 3 and 4 ). From these models, the pooled estimate of the prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride concentration of 1.0 ppm was 48% (95% confidence interval 40% to 57%) and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern 12.5% (7.0% to 21.5%). There was, however, considerable heterogeneity between results of individual studies.

Proportion of population with dental fluorosis by water fluoride concentration with 95% confidence interval for proportion. Fluoride concentration is plotted on log scale because of linear association between this and log (odds) of fluorosis. Each circle represents a study area in which the proportion of people with fluorosis is estimated—the larger the circle, the higher the precision of the estimate

Proportion of population with fluorosis of aesthetic concern by water fluoride concentration (plotted on untransformed scale because of linear association between this and log (odds) of “aesthetic fluorosis”). Each circle represents a study area in which the proportion of people with fluorosis is estimated—the larger the circle, the higher the precision of the estimate

These results show a strong association between water fluoride concentration and the proportion of the population with dental fluorosis. We estimate that six people (95% confidence interval 4 to 21) would have to be exposed to water fluoride concentrations of 1.0 ppm for one additional person to develop fluorosis of any degree, compared with a theoretical low fluoride concentration of 0.4 ppm. Of these, about one quarter will have fluorosis of aesthetic concern (number needed to treat 22, 95% confidence interval 13.6 to ∞). These estimates apply only to the comparison of 1.0 ppm with 0.4 ppm. The model may not fit data at the extreme ends (low or high concentrations) well because of the small numbers of data points at these concentrations. Though many areas in Britain may have water fluoride concentrations lower than 0.4 ppm, this concentration was chosen as the comparator (low fluoride) to ensure that the results were as reliable as possible.

Bone fracture and problems with bone development

Twenty nine studies were included on the association with bone fracture or problems with bone development and water fluoride. These studies had a mean (range) validity score of 3.4 (1.5-6.0) out of 8. All but one study was evidence level C (the other being level B).

Figure 5 shows the estimate of effect of water fluoridation compared with control for studies that provided sufficient information. w11-30 The estimates are distributed evenly around the line of no effect (1.0). There were four analyses that indicated a significant increase in risk of fracture w12 w13 w20 w21 and five that indicated a significant decrease in risk at the 5% significance level. w14 w16 w19 w24 w28 Significant heterogeneity was found (P<0.001) among studies. There were no definite patterns of association for fractures of the hip or “other sites” taken as a group.

Incidence of bone fracture (estimate of effect and 95% confidence interval). See the BMJ ‘s website for further details

Meta-regression showed that the only variable associated with the summary measure was duration of study, with studies that were 10 years or longer in duration associated with a protective effect of water fluoridation (fewer fractures).

Cancer studies

We included 26 of the association of water fluoridation and cancer. Eighteen of these studies were of evidence level C and eight of level B. The mean (range) validity score was 3.8 (2.8-4.8). Incidence of all cause cancer and mortality was considered as an outcome in 10 studies, and 22 analyses were made. w31-40 Of these, only two studies found a significant association: one found a negative association (more cancers) in one of eight subgroups, w32 the other found a significant positive effect (fewer cancers). w31 Of nine studies comprising 20 analyses of bone cancers, w41-49 one found a significant negative effect in both men and boys (more cancers). w41 Because of the varying outcome measures we could not formally pool results.

Other possible adverse effects

We included 32 studies of the association of water fluoridation with other possible negative effects. These studies examined various different outcomes, including Down's syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre, and IQ. The quality of these studies was low; all studies were of evidence level C, and the average validity checklist score was 2.7 (range 1.5-4.5) out of 8. None of the studies had a prospective follow up or incorporated any form of blinding. While 22 studies mentioned potential confounding factors, only six used an analysis that controlled for them.

Three of the 33 studies found significant effects. One found a significant negative effect of water fluoride on Alzheimer's disease (increased incidence) and a significant positive effect on impaired mental functioning (decreased incidence). w49 The other found a significant positive association with congenital malformations in one of two sets of data. w50 A third study found that the combination of low iodine and high fluoride concentrations was associated with goitre and learning difficulties. w53 Because of the varying outcome measures we could not formally pool results.

The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries.

While some of these studies were conducted in the 1940s and 50s, before the common use of such analyses, later studies also failed to use methods that were then commonplace. Many studies lacked any measure of variance for the estimates of caries presented. While most of the studies evaluating the proportion of children without caries contained sufficient data to calculate standard errors, only four of the eight studies that reported decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth provided any estimate of variance.

Outcomes measured and bias

The outcome of fluorosis was the most studied of all the adverse effects considered. Observer bias may be of particular importance in studies that assess fluorosis. Because assessment is subjective, unless the observer is blinded to the exposure status of the person being evaluated, bias can be introduced. Efforts to reduce potential observer bias were rarely undertaken in the included studies. The prevalence of fluorosis is overestimated by the indices used in the included studies because enamel opacities not caused by fluoride may be included. The degree to which the estimated 48% prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride concentration of 1 ppm overestimates the true prevalence is unknown. Figures 3 and 4 do not originate at 0% fluorosis because all areas included in the studies had at least a small amount of fluoride in the water. In addition, the effects of fluoride from other sources may also be playing a part.

Many studies of other potential negative effects also did not take steps to reduce bias or use analytic techniques to control for potential confounding factors. Interpretation of the results of these studies is difficult because few met inclusion criteria on each specific outcome and studies were generally of poor quality.

Statistical heterogeneity among studies may explain why individual studies report differing estimates of effect. Significant heterogeneity was found among studies of caries, fluorosis, and bone fracture and was also apparent among studies of cancer and other negative effects but could not be tested for. In addition, methodological and clinical diversity was present among these studies.

Publication bias is defined as the failure to publish research on the basis of the nature and directional significance of the results. Because of this, systematic reviews that fail to include unpublished studies may overestimate the true effect of an intervention. Because of the nature of the outcomes and study designs that we examined in this review we considered that the standard methods developed to investigate publication bias were not practical or appropriate. It is thus difficult to estimate whether publication bias is having an effect. As we took such a broad approach in searching for studies, any missed studies would have to be large and different from those that were included to overturn the overall result.

Conclusions

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.

The evidence of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative effects was found. This evidence on positive and negative effects needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.

What is already known on this topic

Dental caries cause morbidity and suffering and incur costs

Artificial water fluoridation has been used as a community intervention to reduce the prevalence of dental caries for decades in some communities, but its use remains controversial

What this study adds

A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low

Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported

The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water

An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Keith Abrams, University of Leicester, for contributions to the analysis; Vanda Castle, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, for secretarial support; Dr Alan Glanz, Department of Health, for coordination and organisation with the Department of Health; and Marijke van Gestel, University of Maastricht, for technical assistance early in the review process. Details of the members of the advisory panel can be found on the BMJ 's website.

Contributors: All authors contributed to the design of the protocol, execution of the review and content of the paper. JK led the project and provided methodological skill to the review. MSM was lead reviewer. KM designed and implemented the electronic search strategies and assisted in locating authors. PFW, JC, MM, and MB pilot tested data extraction forms, screened studies, and extracted data. ET and PFW assessed study validity. RT and IC provided clinical interpretation of included dental trials and terminology. PFW and AJS conducted analysis of results. PMW contributed to the interpretation of the results. The advisory panel provided peer review and advice regarding the protocol, analysis, and interpretation. MSM, JK, PFW, and ET are guarantors of the paper.

Funding This review was commissioned and funded by the Department of Health. The views expressed in this review are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.

Competing interests None declared.

• Secretary of State for Health
• Thompson SG ,
• Dersimonian R ,

Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?

39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014)

41 Pages Posted: 6 Sep 2014 Last revised: 13 Mar 2015

Rita Barnett-Rose

Chapman University, The Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Date Written: September 3, 2014

Most Americans are under the impression that compulsory water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to fight tooth decay, and courts have routinely upheld compulsory water fluoridation schemes as legitimate exercises of police power to ensure the dental health of communities. Yet the evidence is steadily mounting against water fluoridation, with recent scientific studies suggesting that not only is fluoridation not effective at achieving the stated public health goal of combating dental caries, but also that excess exposure to fluoride contributes to a host of far more serious health concerns, particularly in the very population the public health measure was originally alleged to benefit -- children. With growing evidence suggesting that systemic intake of excess fluoride is linked to dental and skeletal fluorosis, endocrine disruption, hypothyroidism, bone cancer, and lowered IQ’s in children, it is perhaps not surprising that hundreds of U.S. and Canadian cities and towns are now opting to either reject or cease fluoridating their water supplies, joining over 97% of Europe and most of the developed world in rejecting compulsory water fluoridation. In 2011, in light of new scientific evidence as well as the recommendation by the National Research Council (“NRC”), the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced its intention to re-examine its currently allowed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) of fluoride in drinking water. EPA’s decision was based on the 2006 NRC report recommending that EPA lower its allowable fluoride levels, due to the numerous studies linking serious health problems with excess exposure to fluoride, as well as the significant gaps in research establishing the safety of systemic fluoride intake. Shortly after EPA made its own announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that community water districts lower their allowable fluoride levels to .7 ppm, the lowest level in a range earlier recommended by DHHS. This change sprang from DHHS’s recognition that original “optimal” fluoride levels were set without considering human fluoride consumption from other products, including fluoridated toothpaste and food and beverages made with fluoridated water. Although the EPA to date has not yet come out with any revised Maximum Contaminant Levels for fluoride, this article is first to suggest that, in light of the mounting scientific evidence and ongoing federal agency reconsideration of safe fluoride levels in drinking water, compulsory water fluoridation must now be reassessed to determine whether it remains both legally and ethically justifiable as a coercive public health measure. Specifically, this article analyzes whether compulsory water fluoridation can withstand systematic scrutiny of its risks, benefits, human rights burden and economic costs, or whether the significant gaps in research suggest that compulsory water fluoridation is more properly viewed as human subjects experimental research, requiring the application of strict informed consent and vulnerable population control protocols.

Keywords: fluoridation, public health, health, informed consent, human experimental research

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Rita Barnett-Rose (Contact Author)

Chapman university, the dale e. fowler school of law ( email ).

One University Drive Orange, CA 92866-1099 United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, political economy: government expenditures & related policies ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Family & Children's Law eJournal

Public health law & policy ejournal, water sustainability ejournal, environmental law & policy ejournal, natural resources law & policy ejournal, biology & law ejournal, political economy - development: public service delivery ejournal, preventive dentistry, oral health & oral biosciences ejournal.

• New Dentist News
• Member Login

by David Burger

June 18, 2024

Original Article

The science behind community water fluoridation

Q&a with american fluoridation society duo on advocacy backed by evidence.

A wave of activists has swept across the country, arguing against the merits of community water fluoridation.

 The anti-fluoridation activists counter the recommendations of the leading public health, medical and dental organizations, including the ADA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics, U.S. Public Health Service and World Health Organization. All of the pro-fluoridation organizations tout the documented evidence that fluoride, a mineral that exists naturally in water supplies, has been shown to reduce the rate of tooth decay when added to water.

Since 1950, the ADA has continuously endorsed optimal fluoridation of community water supplies as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay. The ADA’s  policy  is based on the best available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

The  American Fluoridation Society , founded in 2014, often works in tandem with the ADA, state dental societies and other oral health organizations to advocate for the continuance and implementation of community water fluoridation in areas across the nation.

The society is fresh off a win in Leesburg, Florida, where it, along with help from the ADA and other groups and local dentists, successfully advocated for the initiation of community water fluoridation after the municipality went without for two decades.

Johnny Johnson, Jr., D.M.D., American Fluoridation Society president and Florida pediatric dentist, and Matt Jacob, society member who has contributed to the ADA’s guidebook  Fluoridation Facts , answered questions about the evidence-based science behind fluoridation and how dental and oral health professionals can counter arguments that come their way.

ADA News : Where does fluoride come from?

AFS: Fluoride is an ion of the mineral fluorine. It is naturally found in almost all soil and water and many rocks. It is released into the environment when rocks or soil containing fluoride are dissolved by water.

ADA News : How did we discover the beneficial effects of fluoride on the teeth?

AFS : A dentist, Dr. Fredrick McKay, who moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 1901, noticed a phenomenon in which patients who were born there or moved in as infants had a brown stain on their enamel that couldn’t be easily removed. It did not occur in adults once their teeth had erupted.   This stain was named the “Colorado brown stain.” Studies demonstrated that children living in areas with higher fluoride had less caries. These astute clinical observations resulted in the birth of community water fluoridation in 1945.  Indeed, fluoridation is replicating what Mother Nature provided to certain communities in America.

ADA News : Why is community water fluoridation needed?

AFS : Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the amount of fluoride in drinking water, up or down, to a level recommended to prevent cavities.   The recommended level is also called the optimal level, 0.7 ppm. Most water contains fluoride at levels that are too low to prevent cavities. Optimal fluoride levels are the amount of fluoride in water that will give the maximum reductions in cavities in adults and children with minimal levels of dental fluorosis.

ADA News : Why is science important when it comes to supporting community water fluoridation?     

AFS : It is important to know the best available science on any topic — whether that be the best way to build a bridge to last 40 years, a home to resist hurricanes or other natural events or public health measures.   High-quality scientific studies are the way to build a consensus on what the overwhelming preponderance of credible scientific research supports. The persistent research and search for what caused low cavities in certain communities led to the discovery of fluoride’s benefits to the health of teeth. The observation of low cavities and good-looking teeth led us to the optimal amount of fluoride that reduced cavities without unwanted brown stains. Ongoing research is conducted on the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. Nearly 7,000 research papers and articles are listed on PubMed on water fluoridation. Vaccinations and water fluoridation are two of the most researched public health measures ever.

ADA News : How does the fluoride in community water fluoridation prevent cavities?

AFS: Fluoride gets incorporated into the developing dental enamel of permanent teeth before it erupts into the mouth, enhancing the tooth's resistance to acid breakdown and preventing cavities later in life. This occurs up until the age of 8 years old. Fluoridated water and fluoride toothpaste work together to prevent cavities. Fluoridated water keeps a low level of fluoride in the mouth all day. Fluoride toothpaste provides a much higher concentration at important times of day (e.g., bedtime). Both types of fluoride strengthen the outer tooth enamel and slow the activity of bacteria that cause cavities. Together, the two sources offer more protection than using either one alone.

ADA News : How is fluoride added to water systems?

AFS : Fluoride is added to the drinking water before it leaves the water plant. The existing natural level of fluoride in the water is adjusted to bring it to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm. This is done through precise calculations, and these levels are constantly monitored by water plant personnel with sophisticated equipment. These procedures must meet standards set by the state’s department of natural resources. As the level of water flow and fluoride concentration fluctuates during the day, adjustments in the amount of fluoride added is also adjusted to maintain the optimal level. The way fluoride is added to the water at water plants is the same regardless of the fluoride additive used. There are three fluoride additives that have been approved by the American Water Works Association and meet the strict requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for water additives.

ADA News : How do you counter the science and evidence that anti-community water fluoridation activists use in their arguments?

AFS : We carefully analyze the studies or reports that opponents share. By doing so, we usually find a significant problem with the methodology. For example, many studies that are circulated by opponents tested natural fluoride levels in water in China, India or other nations that are far higher than the fluoride levels found in fluoridated tap water.  

For more information on community water fluoridation and ADA advocacy, visit  resources on fluoride in water at ADA.org/fluoride .

Most Read View More

Recommended content.

Arginine and the Healthy Oral Microbiome

Leveraging artificial intelligence to improve clinical outcomes

Enhance clear aligner oversight with CandidMonitoring™

The Hall Technique for Modern Pediatric Caries Management

Join the ADA

Elevate your career, your life and your momentum with resources and benefits from the nation’s leading dental association

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Community Dentistry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• PMID: 8070242
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01833.x

This paper reviewed the literature on the evidence for water fluoridation's effectiveness under current conditions of multiple fluoride use at recommended and at reduced concentrations, the extent of dental fluorosis at different fluoride concentrations, and the "halo" effect of water fluoridation. Using the relative difference in dental caries between communities with low and optimal water fluoride as an indicator, the effectiveness of water fluoridation has decreased over time as the use of other fluorides has increased. Thus the effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined. Compared to the early fluoridation studies, the differences in dental caries and fluorosis prevalence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas have markedly narrowed. Both the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis have increased since 1945; however, the portion of fluorosis due to water fluoridation is now less (40%) than that attributed to other fluoride sources (60%). Research also suggests that the "halo" effect of community water fluoridation may result in a significantly greater intake of fluoride for people in non-fluoridated communities. This review recognized that since water fluoridation has unique advantages from the perspectives of distribution, equity, compliance and cost-effectiveness over other fluoride technologies, it remains as the fundamental base for caries prevention. The increasingly greater contribution that other sources of fluoride make to dental fluorosis suggests that these sources of fluoride, many of which are used on an elective basis, should be more closely examined for needed changes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O'Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 18;2015(6):CD010856. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26092033 Free PMC article. Review.
• Fluoride intake of children: considerations for dental caries and dental fluorosis. Buzalaf MAR, Levy SM. Buzalaf MAR, et al. Monogr Oral Sci. 2011;22:1-19. doi: 10.1159/000325101. Epub 2011 Jun 23. Monogr Oral Sci. 2011. PMID: 21701188 Review.
• The future of water fluoridation. O'Mullane DM. O'Mullane DM. J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:756-9; discussion 820-3. doi: 10.1177/00220345900690S146. J Dent Res. 1990. PMID: 2107232
• Fluoride supplements: current effectiveness, side effects, and recommendations. Ismail AI. Ismail AI. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994 Jun;22(3):164-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01835.x. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994. PMID: 8070244 Review.
• A review of fluoride dentifrice related to dental fluorosis. Warren JJ, Levy SM. Warren JJ, et al. Pediatr Dent. 1999 Jul-Aug;21(4):265-71. Pediatr Dent. 1999. PMID: 10436482 Review.
• Control of Dental Caries in Children and Adolescents Using Fluoride: An Overview of Community-Level Fluoridation Methods. Pontigo-Loyola AP, Mendoza-Rodriguez M, de la Rosa-Santillana R, Rivera-Pacheco MG, Islas-Granillo H, Casanova-Rosado JF, Márquez-Corona ML, Navarrete-Hernández JJ, Medina-Solís CE, Manton DJ. Pontigo-Loyola AP, et al. Pediatr Rep. 2024 Mar 27;16(2):243-253. doi: 10.3390/pediatric16020021. Pediatr Rep. 2024. PMID: 38651460 Free PMC article. Review.
• Maternal and fetal exposures to fluoride during mid-gestation among pregnant women in northern California. Abduweli Uyghurturk D, Goin DE, Martinez-Mier EA, Woodruff TJ, DenBesten PK. Abduweli Uyghurturk D, et al. Environ Health. 2020 Apr 6;19(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00581-2. Environ Health. 2020. PMID: 32248806 Free PMC article.
• Survival analysis of caries incidence in African-American school-aged children. Ghazal TS, Levy SM, Childers NK, Carter KD, Caplan DJ, Warren JJ, Kolker JL. Ghazal TS, et al. J Public Health Dent. 2019 Dec;79(1):10-17. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12289. Epub 2018 Sep 20. J Public Health Dent. 2019. PMID: 30238461 Free PMC article.
• Water fluoridation and the quality of information available online. Frangos Z, Steffens M, Leask J. Frangos Z, et al. Int Dent J. 2018 Aug;68(4):253-261. doi: 10.1111/idj.12377. Epub 2018 Feb 13. Int Dent J. 2018. PMID: 29441567 Free PMC article. English.
• Associations of Community Water Fluoridation with Caries Prevalence and Oral Health Inequality in Children. Kim HN, Kim JH, Kim SY, Kim JB. Kim HN, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 13;14(6):631. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14060631. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017. PMID: 28608827 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books
• PubChem Compound (MeSH Keyword)

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.321(7265); 2000 Oct 7

Systematic review of water fluoridation

Marian s mcdonagh.

a NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, b Dental Public Health Unit, Dental School, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XY, c Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP

Penny F Whiting

Paul m wilson, alex j sutton, ivor chestnutt, matthew bradley, elizabeth treasure, jos kleijnen.

Contributors: All authors contributed to the design of the protocol, execution of the review and content of the paper. JK led the project and provided methodological skill to the review. MSM was lead reviewer. KM designed and implemented the electronic search strategies and assisted in locating authors. PFW, JC, MM, and MB pilot tested data extraction forms, screened studies, and extracted data. ET and PFW assessed study validity. RT and IC provided clinical interpretation of included dental trials and terminology. PFW and AJS conducted analysis of results. PMW contributed to the interpretation of the results. The advisory panel provided peer review and advice regarding the protocol, analysis, and interpretation. MSM, JK, PFW, and ET are guarantors of the paper.

Associated Data

To review the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of drinking water.

Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched; further information requested from authors. Inclusion criteria were a predefined hierarchy of evidence and objectives. Study validity was assessed with checklists. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data, and assessed validity.

Main outcome measures

Decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth. Proportion of children without caries. Measure of effect was the difference in change in prevalence of caries from baseline to final examination in fluoridated compared with control areas. For potential adverse effects, all outcomes reported were used.

214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.

Conclusions

The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.

Introduction

In the white paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation , the UK government highlighted the commonly held belief that there is strong evidence that water fluoridation improves and considerably reduces inequality in dental health. 1 The government also acknowledged that “the extensive research linking water fluoridation to improved dental health was mostly undertaken a few years ago,” and as a result this study was commissioned to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of the public water supply.

We focused on the two main objectives: the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of caries and whether fluoridation has negative effects. The full report is available elsewhere. 2

Search strategy

We searched 25 specialist databases, including Medline, Embase, TOXLINE, and Current Contents (Science Citation Index) from inception of the database to February 2000. In addition, we hand searched Index Medicus (1945-63) and Excerpta Medica (1955-73). Further searches included the world wide web and bibliographies of all included studies. We sought additional references from individuals and organisations through a dedicated web site for this review ( www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm includes the full report) and through members of a specifically designated advisory panel. Published and unpublished studies in any language were included. Full details of the search strategy are reported elsewhere. 2

Inclusion criteria

We applied two types of inclusion criteria. The first was the level of evidence, based on the risk of bias. Studies were classified into the levels of evidence. Evidence rated below level B (moderate quality evidence, moderate risk of bias) was not considered in the evaluation of efficacy. In the assessment of safety all levels of evidence were considered. If a study met only one or two of three criteria for a given level of evidence, it was assigned the next level down. Details of both types of inclusion criteria can be found on the BMJ 's website.

Data extraction and assessment of study quality

Inclusion criteria were assessed independently by at least two reviewers. Extraction of data from studies and assessment of validity was independently performed by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. We assessed study validity formally using a published checklist modified for this review. 3 Each item on the checklist was given one point, with a total of eight points possible for all study designs except case-control studies, which could attain a total of nine points. 2

Outcome measures

Studies that estimated the effect of fluoridation on caries investigated two main outcomes at baseline and at the final examination. These were decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth and the proportion of children without caries. The measure of effect used for the analysis was the difference of the change in prevalence of caries from baseline to the final examination in the fluoridated area compared with the control area in children of the same age.

To allow investigation of the effect of baseline levels of caries, we took the outcome measure from the final survey data for the meta-regressions of caries studies. The outcomes used were the data on effect size (mean difference) for decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth and the data on difference in risk for the proportion of children without caries. This was done because correlation between the mean difference of the change in incidence of caries and baseline caries may lead to a spurious association. The median risk difference was used to calculate the number needed to treat for the proportion of children without caries.

Several indices are used to classify enamel opacities, including fluorosis. Dental fluorosis was defined here as any score other than normal on each index used. As the importance of a fluorosis score at the lowest level of each index is debatable, a second method was selected. This method describes the number of people who have dental fluorosis that may cause “aesthetic concern to the patient.” The level at which fluorosis was judged to cause aesthetic concern was taken from a survey of 12 year old children in the United Kingdom w10 and corresponded to a tooth surface index of fluorosis score of two or more, a Thylstrup and Fejerskov index score of three or more, or Dean's classification of “mild” or worse. Studies that used other indices could not be included in this analysis. Full details of indices can be found elsewhere. 2

Where the data were in a suitable format we plotted measures of effect and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was investigated by visual examination of plots and statistically with the Q statistic. 4 If we found significant heterogeneity we conducted meta-regression. Random effects models were adopted throughout to combine study results. 5 Meta-regression was used to explore the influence of study characteristics on outcome in an attempt to try to explain any heterogeneity between studies. 4 Stata version 6.0 (Stata Corporation, US) was used for this analysis. 6

We used multi-level regression analysis to combine studies and investigate the association of water fluoride concentration with the prevalence of dental fluorosis (the analysis was conducted separately for all fluorosis and fluorosis of aesthetic concern) and used a multilevel model to combine studies. Each area with a different fluoride concentration under observation within a study was included separately in the model. The log (odds) of having fluorosis was modelled as a function of fluoride concentration. The analysis was carried out with the MIXED procedure within SAS (SAS Institute, US). Full details of methods used in the analyses, including all factors investigated in meta-regressions can be found elsewhere. 2

We included 214 studies; none was of evidence level A (high quality, bias unlikely). The study designs used included 45 controlled before-after studies, 102 cross sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies, and seven case-control studies. Summaries of individual study designs and full details on findings are available elsewhere. 2

Positive effects

Twenty six studies of the effect of water fluoridation on dental caries met the inclusion criteria. All but three of the studies included were controlled before-after studies. Of the three remaining, two used prospective cohort designs and the other a retrospective cohort design. The controlled before-after studies assessed different groups of children of the same age (12 years) at the baseline (before fluoridation) and final (after fluoridation) surveys. All studies were of evidence level B (moderate), and the mean validity score was 5 (range 3.5 to 6.8) out of 8.

Figures ​ Figures1 1 and ​ and2 2 show estimates of the effect of fluoridation on the change in decayed, missing, and filled teeth and on the change in children without caries compared with control children for studies in which fluoridation was initiated after the baseline survey. w1-9 Individual studies contributed more than one age group to the results. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies (P<0.001).

Change in proportion (%) of children without caries in fluoridated compared with non-fluoridated areas (mean difference and 95% confidence interval)

Change in decayed, missing, and filled teeth for primary/permanent teeth (mean difference and 95% confidence interval)

The range (median) of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of children without caries was −5.0% to 64% (14.6%; interquartile range 5.05-22.1%). In the fluoridated areas there was a significant increase in the proportion of children without caries in 19 of 30 analyses. Only one analysis found a significant decrease in the proportion of children without caries in the fluoridated area. We estimate that that a median of six people would need to receive fluoridated water for one extra person to be free from caries (interquartile range of the distribution of number needed to treat was 4 to 9 people).

Fifteen of 16 analyses found a significantly greater mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth in the fluoridated areas than the non-fluoridated areas (fig ​ (fig2). 2 ). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5-4.4 (2.25) teeth (interquartile range 1.28-3.63 teeth).

Meta-regression showed that the proportion of children without caries at baseline, the setting, and the validity score show a significant association with the difference in risk in the proportion of children without caries. A table of the results of the meta-regression can be found on the BMJ 's website. Baseline decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth, age, setting, and duration of study show a significant association with the mean difference in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth.

Negative effects

A total of 175 included studies examined possible negative effects of water fluoridation.

Dental fluorosis

We included 88 studies of dental fluorosis. These were largely cross sectional designs, with only four controlled before-after designs. The mean (range) validity score for fluorosis was only 2.8 (1.3-5.8) out of 8. All of the studies were of evidence level C (lowest quality), except one level B study. A full list of citations is available elsewhere. 2

Regression analysis showed a significant dose-response relation for both methods of measuring the prevalence of fluorosis (figs ​ (figs3 3 and ​ and4). 4 ). From these models, the pooled estimate of the prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride concentration of 1.0 ppm was 48% (95% confidence interval 40% to 57%) and for fluorosis of aesthetic concern 12.5% (7.0% to 21.5%). There was, however, considerable heterogeneity between results of individual studies.

Proportion of population with dental fluorosis by water fluoride concentration with 95% confidence interval for proportion. Fluoride concentration is plotted on log scale because of linear association between this and log (odds) of fluorosis. Each circle represents a study area in which the proportion of people with fluorosis is estimated—the larger the circle, the higher the precision of the estimate

Proportion of population with fluorosis of aesthetic concern by water fluoride concentration (plotted on untransformed scale because of linear association between this and log (odds) of “aesthetic fluorosis”). Each circle represents a study area in which the proportion of people with fluorosis is estimated—the larger the circle, the higher the precision of the estimate

These results show a strong association between water fluoride concentration and the proportion of the population with dental fluorosis. We estimate that six people (95% confidence interval 4 to 21) would have to be exposed to water fluoride concentrations of 1.0 ppm for one additional person to develop fluorosis of any degree, compared with a theoretical low fluoride concentration of 0.4 ppm. Of these, about one quarter will have fluorosis of aesthetic concern (number needed to treat 22, 95% confidence interval 13.6 to ∞). These estimates apply only to the comparison of 1.0 ppm with 0.4 ppm. The model may not fit data at the extreme ends (low or high concentrations) well because of the small numbers of data points at these concentrations. Though many areas in Britain may have water fluoride concentrations lower than 0.4 ppm, this concentration was chosen as the comparator (low fluoride) to ensure that the results were as reliable as possible.

Bone fracture and problems with bone development

Twenty nine studies were included on the association with bone fracture or problems with bone development and water fluoride. These studies had a mean (range) validity score of 3.4 (1.5-6.0) out of 8. All but one study was evidence level C (the other being level B).

Figure ​ Figure5 5 shows the estimate of effect of water fluoridation compared with control for studies that provided sufficient information. w11-30 The estimates are distributed evenly around the line of no effect (1.0). There were four analyses that indicated a significant increase in risk of fracture w12 w13 w20 w21 and five that indicated a significant decrease in risk at the 5% significance level. w14 w16 w19 w24 w28 Significant heterogeneity was found (P<0.001) among studies. There were no definite patterns of association for fractures of the hip or “other sites” taken as a group.

Incidence of bone fracture (estimate of effect and 95% confidence interval). See the BMJ 's website for further details

Meta-regression showed that the only variable associated with the summary measure was duration of study, with studies that were 10 years or longer in duration associated with a protective effect of water fluoridation (fewer fractures).

Cancer studies

We included 26 of the association of water fluoridation and cancer. Eighteen of these studies were of evidence level C and eight of level B. The mean (range) validity score was 3.8 (2.8-4.8). Incidence of all cause cancer and mortality was considered as an outcome in 10 studies, and 22 analyses were made. w31–40 Of these, only two studies found a significant association: one found a negative association (more cancers) in one of eight subgroups, w32 the other found a significant positive effect (fewer cancers). w31 Of nine studies comprising 20 analyses of bone cancers, w41-49 one found a significant negative effect in both men and boys (more cancers). w41 Because of the varying outcome measures we could not formally pool results.

Other possible adverse effects

We included 32 studies of the association of water fluoridation with other possible negative effects. These studies examined various different outcomes, including Down's syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre, and IQ. The quality of these studies was low; all studies were of evidence level C, and the average validity checklist score was 2.7 (range 1.5-4.5) out of 8. None of the studies had a prospective follow up or incorporated any form of blinding. While 22 studies mentioned potential confounding factors, only six used an analysis that controlled for them.

Three of the 33 studies found significant effects. One found a significant negative effect of water fluoride on Alzheimer's disease (increased incidence) and a significant positive effect on impaired mental functioning (decreased incidence). w49 The other found a significant positive association with congenital malformations in one of two sets of data. w50 A third study found that the combination of low iodine and high fluoride concentrations was associated with goitre and learning difficulties. w53 Because of the varying outcome measures we could not formally pool results.

The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries.

While some of these studies were conducted in the 1940s and 50s, before the common use of such analyses, later studies also failed to use methods that were then commonplace. Many studies lacked any measure of variance for the estimates of caries presented. While most of the studies evaluating the proportion of children without caries contained sufficient data to calculate standard errors, only four of the eight studies that reported decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth provided any estimate of variance.

Outcomes measured and bias

The outcome of fluorosis was the most studied of all the adverse effects considered. Observer bias may be of particular importance in studies that assess fluorosis. Because assessment is subjective, unless the observer is blinded to the exposure status of the person being evaluated, bias can be introduced. Efforts to reduce potential observer bias were rarely undertaken in the included studies. The prevalence of fluorosis is overestimated by the indices used in the included studies because enamel opacities not caused by fluoride may be included. The degree to which the estimated 48% prevalence of fluorosis at a water fluoride concentration of 1 ppm overestimates the true prevalence is unknown. Figures ​ Figures3 3 and ​ and4 4 do not originate at 0% fluorosis because all areas included in the studies had at least a small amount of fluoride in the water. In addition, the effects of fluoride from other sources may also be playing a part.

Many studies of other potential negative effects also did not take steps to reduce bias or use analytic techniques to control for potential confounding factors. Interpretation of the results of these studies is difficult because few met inclusion criteria on each specific outcome and studies were generally of poor quality.

Statistical heterogeneity among studies may explain why individual studies report differing estimates of effect. Significant heterogeneity was found among studies of caries, fluorosis, and bone fracture and was also apparent among studies of cancer and other negative effects but could not be tested for. In addition, methodological and clinical diversity was present among these studies.

Publication bias is defined as the failure to publish research on the basis of the nature and directional significance of the results. Because of this, systematic reviews that fail to include unpublished studies may overestimate the true effect of an intervention. Because of the nature of the outcomes and study designs that we examined in this review we considered that the standard methods developed to investigate publication bias were not practical or appropriate. It is thus difficult to estimate whether publication bias is having an effect. As we took such a broad approach in searching for studies, any missed studies would have to be large and different from those that were included to overturn the overall result.

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.

The evidence of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative effects was found. This evidence on positive and negative effects needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.

What is already known on this topic

Dental caries cause morbidity and suffering and incur costs

Artificial water fluoridation has been used as a community intervention to reduce the prevalence of dental caries for decades in some communities, but its use remains controversial

What this study adds

A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low

Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported

The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water

An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We thank Dr Keith Abrams, University of Leicester, for contributions to the analysis; Vanda Castle, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, for secretarial support; Dr Alan Glanz, Department of Health, for coordination and organisation with the Department of Health; and Marijke van Gestel, University of Maastricht, for technical assistance early in the review process. Details of the members of the advisory panel can be found on the BMJ 's website.

Editorial by Hausen

Funding: This review was commissioned and funded by the Department of Health. The views expressed in this review are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.

Competing interests: None declared.

Additional material comprising criteria for inclusion, members of the advisory panel, references (w1 etc) for included studies, and meta-regression table can be found on the BMJ's website