SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In other words, what happens when a population suddenly stops taking fluoride in their drinking water, like Juneau's citizenry did?
Now, thanks to a recent study led by first author and public health researcher Jennifer Meyer from the University of Alaska Anchorage, we've got new insights into the subsequent effects.
In the study, Meyer assessed Medicaid dental claim billing records for two groups of children and adolescents aged 18 or under.
One of these groups represented what the researchers call "optimal" community water fluoridation (CWF) exposure: 853 non-adult patients on behalf of whom Medicaid dental claims were filed in 2003, years before the fluoride cessation began in 2007.
The other group was made up of 1,052 non-adult patients from families who similarly met Medicaid income requirements, and who made the same kind of dental claims almost a decade later, in 2012.
[...] "By taking the fluoride out of the water supply... the trade-off for that is children are going to experience one additional caries procedure per year, at a ballpark (cost) of US$300 more per child," Meyer explained to KTOO News.
Reference: Jennifer Meyer, Vasileios Margaritis & Aaron Mendelsohn, Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska, BMC Oral Health, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0684-2
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @10:41AM (5 children)
In the paper they report an actual number per year. For ages 0-6 this is 1.55 +/- 3.89 in 2003, and 2.52 +/- 4.35 in 2012.
Also keep in mind, this is "a variable *reflecting* the number of caries-related procedures", not the actual number of cavities found.
The costs were: " Current Dental Terminology (CDT) codes used for procedure and service claim reimbursement, were publicly available for referencing procedure types and costs for both study years."
They also say "Medicaid made adjustments in the form of increases for dental claims CDT codes in 2009 and 2010, which may have resulted in Medicaid reimbursement increases even without provision of more services. From 2003 to 2008, the Medicaid dental reimbursement rate would largely have been the same (i.e., remained unchanged). Therefore, since this study spanned 2003 and 2012, provider service fees were the more consistent metric and could also be adjusted for inflation, thus allowing comparisons."
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Monday December 16 2019, @02:32PM (4 children)
What shocks me is that I never had cavities. I drank flouridated water growing up.
I can't imagine a scenario when the entire community experiences any amount of additional cavity related procedures -- and that it's considered OK.
Why do they have any? I mean I get that kids eat candy. And drink sugar water. And that adults do, too and that behaviors can be hard to stop.
I only stopped drinking typical soda and eating regular candy after I moved out from my parents and had to actually buy that stuff on my own. Eventually, I got it only on sale, and now I dont' even buy it except on occasion (like the holidays). None of those changes in adult behaviors assisted me as a kid.
My question then is if kids are having some greater value of *additional* cavity related procedures -- it doesn't matter to me how many they had before. Why is it that there are numerous cavities to begin with? The fact that it's accepted on average that kids are getting multiple cavity related procedures... it sounds to me like there's something else in the water out there that's causing a problem, and it's not flouridation. It's probably fructose or other dissolved sugars added to the other drinks kids are consuming. The fact that "medicaid" is references as opposed to "anonymized heatlh insurance billing data" makes me wonder if any stereotypical dietary issues are present as well. I won't get into them, but it's no secret that food deserts are often without healthy (or maybe more accurately, less-bad-for-you) options on a regular basis. Even less so in quantities that are affordable for families leveraging medicaid.
Maybe some scientist somewhere should study tooth decay in the unlikely scenario that kids are prevented from drinking sugary carbonated beverages while allowing to eat their regular junk food of choice--just enforce the drink limits. Maybe also account for fruit juice consumption; much of it is high sugar naturally, but there are also beverages that have many added sugars in addition to being acidic to begin with. There aren't too many 'basic' fruit juices (grape juice is the only thing that comes to mind as being somewhat neutral in regards to teeth).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:08PM (1 child)
I had a bad fever and got put on antibiotics when I was about two, ever since I had weak enamel. I eat zero sweets and always had fluoridated water, doesn't matter.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 17 2019, @07:41AM
I got put on tetracycline for over a year due to acne, ruined my teeth and my gut biome. I've also always had a problem with grinding my teeth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @02:30AM (1 child)
These are poor kids (article mentioned Medicaid), and, sadly, all that this implies.
Probability of less parental supervision.
Less preventative care like dental cleanings.
Old worn out toothbrush.
etc.
There is an LA area dental school that partnered with the LA Unified School District that claims massive improvements in the dental health of the children participating in the program. But, not all poor kids have access to / have parents that know they have access + sufficient time off work to take advantage. One of the perks the school lists is free toothpaste and toothbrushes for participants.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday December 20 2019, @02:38PM
I agree that a lot of the things a kid can benefit from involving parental access to things is wildly disproportionate across incomes, social classes, and the various places they may live.
Growing up, it was a big deal for my mom to take a day off from work to shuttle me around to whatever doctor office or the dentist. It was always the same doctors/dentist; it wasn't like today where insurance can seem to change yearly if your employer "provides" it and changes each year based on costs. It was just a matter of her getting time off work to go.
I'd have to blow out a kidney or something just as bad if I ever hoped to stay home from school sick. (She even learned from the movie ET and watched me when taking my temperature so that I wouldn't cheat!!)
Anyway, blowing out a kidney isn't the same as sugar coating my way to the dentist. We had flouridated water where I grew up, but as a teenager we moved to more of a non-incorporated area and had some very metallic and mineral infused well water. I never did learn what all the contents of that water was (I don't think they ever paid to test it -- just that they paid a whole lot for an in-line iron filter followed by an in-line water softener).
I have to wonder if the introduction of that well water had any benefit; I was young enough to still have teeth coming in, but not so young that I could benefit (or not) from drinking it.
I haven't read or even seen any studies about mineral content of well water and the effects that may have on bone and tooth development for non-adults of any specicies, let alone humans -- it could very well be that hard water is a benefit for dogs and cats and anything that gnaws on a bone or something hard, in addition to kids getting more chomping resiliency.
Makes sense if it would; and how about that, someone somewhere did do a study: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324910.php [medicalnewstoday.com]
Maybe utility provided tap water that is aggressively filtered is not so great, flouridated or not, when it comes to being healthy, but of course water with little dissolved solids sure beats whatever is in Flint, Michigan's water.
I recently read that lead exposure in drinking water for both children and adults--even adults that already are 'formed' as far as the brain is concerned -- are placed at a much greater risk for developing demetia and Alzeimer's as they age.
Rather than go to a news site, here's a headline from a source of lead info... https://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst48.html [lead.org.au] Whatever is making the rounds in the news today about lead exposure and dementia seems to be a well known fact already, but studies are being done to correlate that across wider population as well as, of course, medicare records.
It seems that Medicare in the US might be one of the best places to mine for data when it comes to societal health issues affecting people that depend on the government to access non-polluted water sources. I can see how that can go off the rails quickly if Google or Amazon or some profit seeking entity gets their hands on it. If you can't trust your government, you probably can't trust the intentions of for-profit companies with no qualms about ensuring your insurance company knows you have pre-existing conditions or likely-to-develop conditions, quite possibly caused by government spending cuts...