ADA recommends early use of fluorides to fight tooth decay in kids

Tooth decay is the most common chronic disease found in American kids. In order to put a check on it, the American Dental Association has released a new set of guidelines to get the kids rid of their dental problems.

The American Dental Association (ADA) suggests children to begin use of toothpaste with fluoride as soon as they get their first tooth. They say this will help in fighting cavities.

“About 25 percent of children have or had suffered cavities before stepping into kindergarten. The figures are alarming. So it’s important to provide dental guidance to the parents to help prevent their children from developing cavities,” Dr. Edmond L. Truelove, chair of the ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs, said in a press release.Million-dollar Smile_2

For children under 3, parents should use just a smear to fight cavities. For kids between  3 and 6, a pea–sized amount is advised.

In its previous guidelines, the ADA had recommended kids under 2 to have their teeth brushed with water before going for fluoride toothpaste (by the time they are 6-year-old).

The changes into the guidelines comes after ADA’s new review found that brushing with fluoride toothpaste had statistically significant benefits on preventing decay and cavities in children.

The new review was published in the February issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association.

According to ADA report, more than 16 million kids in the United States have untreated tooth decay. The dental problems are causing them and their parents to miss millions of hours of school and work and dollars cumulatively.

 

  • Reid Taylor

    DO NOT follow this advice. Fluoride is indeed a toxic poison that was once the main ingredient in rat poison. It is more toxic than lead, and a recent Harvard study found that it lowers IQ in children by 7 points. Do the research – watch “An Inconvenient Tooth” or “The Great Culling: Our Water” on YouTube.

    People need to realize that there are some very, very corrupt institutions in America – the ADA is one of them. Water fluoridation is mostly banned in Europe, and Israel has just done the same. Stop brushing with it, and again, do some research instead of trusting the latest government/corporate/media
    propaganda.

    • Sslott

      Reid Taylor

      Interesting. Instead of following the recommendations of the American Dental Association, one of the most highly respected and authoritative healthcare organizations in the world, readers should follow the recommendations of ………Reid Taylor?? And your educational level and credentials are? And instead of citing reliable, respected sources of peer-reviewed scientific information, you attempt to steer readers to YouTube videos of unsubstantiated, antifluoridationist nonsense?

      First, fluoride has been “banned” nowhere. That’s nonsense.

      Second, the Harvard study you reference was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

      “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

      As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • No scientific evidence exists showing that decay-prone
    toddlers are fluoride-deficient. But loads of data show Americans are
    fluoride-overdosed So,we are shocked that the ADA is advocating for more
    fluoride use, and at a younger age when children have little or no control over their swallowing reflexes, which seems to boost profits for fluoride toothpaste makers; but does not protect America’s most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects.
    The new epidemic of dental fluorosis (fluoride discolored
    teeth) is the reason government, health and dental groups now advise that

    1) infant formula should not be routinely mixed with fluoridated water (http://www.FormulaFluoride.Webs.com) All infant formula already contains some fluoride, whether concentrated, ready-to-feed or organic.

    2) recommended “optimal” amount of fluoride in public water
    supplies be lowered (January 2011)

    3) dentists and pediatricians tally a child’s total fluoride
    intake from all sources before prescribing more – this is almost universally
    ignored.

    4) Only children at risk of decay should be administered
    fluoride – another virtually ignored fact.

    5) And the fluoride supplement dosages have been downgraded at
    least twice
    No human is, or ever was, fluoride deficient. Consuming a
    fluoride free diet does not cause tooth decay. Rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride will change that, studies show

    • Sslott

      The “Media Director” for the fringe, antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network, who posts under the pseudonym “nyscof”, as expected, has come out of the woodwork here to “inform” readers that they should trust her opinion rather than that of the American Dental Association, one of the most authoritative and respected healthcare organizations in the world. “Nyscof” has no healthcare education, no healthcare training, no healthcare experience, and no healthcare knowledge except the out-of-context “information” she copy and pastes from the literature. Yet, she advises against following the recommendations of the American Dental Association.

      First, no intelligent person with a knowledge of science and healthcare claims that the reason for recommending fluoride is due to a fluoride “deficiency” in humans. That’s akin to claiming that people wear raincoats in the rain because they believe they have a deficiency of raincoats. Fluoride is added protection of the teeth against dental decay, that’s all.

      Second, the constant conspiracy claims made by “nyscof”, and other antifluoridationists, against dentists and organized dentistry, are preposterous. Dentists certainly seek to make a living, as do most people. However, as healthcare professionals we also have a strong sense of responsibility to improve the health and well-being of our citizens. It comes with the dental degree and state licensure. Advocating for a proven beneficial public health initiative such as water fluoridation is simply upholding that responsibility, and is but one of the countless efforts we make to improve health. No fluoridation proponent, to my knowledge, profits in any manner from this advocation.

      Since “nyscof” brings up the conspiracy nonsense about profiting, let’s expose her hypocrisy by examining who actually DOES profit from keeping this issue alive:

      1.  The retired chemist/antifluoridationist/fringe activist, Paul Connett:  Connett is the Director of the fringe, antifluoridationist group, FAN, of which “nyscof” is the “Media Director”. Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy. Paul receives royalties from these sales which he claims to donate to his antifluoridationist group FAN.  As FAN presumably pays all, or a least part, of Paul’s expenses for his Fluoride chasing trips all over the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, and Europe, this “donation” would appear to be nothing more than a tax strategy.  

      Additionally, both Paul and his wife each receive $1000 per month from their non-profit organization.

      2. William Hirzy- Hirzy, the EPA Scientist so often mentioned by antifluoridationists, is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s group, FAN.

      3.  Attorney James Deal- A close Connett affiliate, Deal has a website devoted entirely to attempts to stir up frivolous class action lawsuits against fluoridation, presumably from which he would profit if ever successful. 

      4.  Richard Sauerheber, PhD.-  The ” Scientific Consultant” for Attorney Deal in his fluoride lawsuit efforts.  It is anyone’s guess how much , if any, is paid to Sauerheber for his “consulting” fees in Deal’s lawsuit seeking activities, as Sauerheber has refused to disclose his financial agreements with Deal, in spite of repeated requests to do so.

      5.  Alex Jones- Connett affiliate, Jones, has a new concoction of some sort which is sold, purporting to remove fluoride from the body. 

      6. Whatever fees, salaries, etc. that may be paid by FAN to Connett’s son who provides services to FAN, and whatever other family members and friends who may be on the FAN payroll.

      As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit “environmental” group, the financial transparency which would be expected of an organization such as FAN, which depends on public donations, is too murky to know exactly who is actually paid what, within this group.

      Now let’s address the misleading and misinformation that “nyscof” has intentionally posted here:

      1. In regard to powdered infant formula formula, “government, health, and dental groups” do NOT recommend that “infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water”. The only dental fluorosis which may be in any way attributable to fluoridated water is mild to very mild. This stage of dental fluorosis is barely detectable and poses no adverse effects in cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many do not even consider this effect to be undesirable, much less adverse. However, for those parents who may be concerned even with mild fluorisis, in spite of the decay preventive benefit, the ADA and the CDC have suggested that they either use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use premixed formula, most, if not all, of which is made with low fluoride content water.

      From the blog that nyscof cited:

      “American Dental Association_Evidence-based_Infant_Formula_Chairside_Guide.

      Recommendations for infants who consume reconstituted infant formula as the main source of nutrition: • Continue use of liquid or powdered concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risk for enamel fluorosis. • Use ready-to-feed formula or liquid or powdered concentrate formula reconstituted with water that is either fluoride-free or has low concentrations of fluoride when the potential risk for enamel fluorosis is a concern. http://ebd.ada.org/contentdocs/ADA_Evidence-based_Infant_Formula_Chairside_Guide.pdf
      2. In 2011, in recognition of the increased sources of fluoride available outside of water than existed when the optimal level of fluoride was originally established, the CDC recommended changing the existing optimal level from a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm to simply the lower end of that range, 0.7 ppm. Although the U.S. DHHS has as yet to officially adopt that recommendation, it is expected to do so in the near future. This is exactly how our regulatory agencies are supposed to work.

      3. Contrary to “nyscof’s” ridiculous claim that pediatricians and dentists “routinely ignore” evaluating their patient’s total fluoride intake before prescribing fluoride supplements, this is exactly what is done prior to prescription of these supplements. “Nyscof’s” lack of knowledge and understanding of how total fluoride intake is calculated has led her to post this misinformation. In reality, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter. Thus, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested with every liter of fluoridated water consumed. The CDC and the Institute of Medicine estimate that 75% of total daily fluoride intake comes from water and beverages. Adults consume an average of 2-3 liters per day, children less. Determining the total water consumption, then performing an elementary algebraic equation will provide total daily fluoride intake. Fluoride supplements are generally only provided to individuals whose primary water source is not fluoridated. Prior to prescription of supplements, pediatricians and dentists first have an assessment of the existing level of “naturally” occurring fluoride in their primary water source. They then use this assessment to calculate total fluoride intake from all sources, then prescribe supplements in the appropriate amounts.

      4. ALL children are at risk for dental decay. That “nyscof” does not understand this is further evidence if her ignorance of healthcare.

      5. Fluoridated toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the concentration of fluoride than that in fluoridated water. THIS is why there is a warning on the toothpaste tube that it should not be ingested.

      So, trust the “Media Director” of the fringe antifluoridationist group, FAN who intentionally posts uninformed, misleading, and misinformation…….or trust the recommendations of the ADA, one of the most highly respected and authoritative healthcare organizations in the world?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS