Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2023
The effect of community water fluoridation on dental caries in children and young people in England: an ecological study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts David J, Massey Vicky, Morris John, Verlander Neville Q, Saei Ayoub, Young Nick, Makhani Semina, Wilcox David, Davies Gill, White Sandra, Leonardi Giovanni, Fletcher Tony, Newton John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The protective effect of community water fluoridation (CWF) against dental caries may be modified by secular changes in health behaviour. We aimed to determine the contemporary association between fluoride in public water supplies (PWS) and dental caries indicators and inequalities in England.
METHODS: We estimated exposure to CWF and PWS fluoride concentrations from national monitoring data, using Geographic Information Systems and water supply boundaries, categorizing mean period exposure into <0.1, 0.1-<0.2, 0.2-<0.4, 0.4-<0.7 and ≥0.7 mg/l. We used area-level health outcome and confounder data in multivariable regression models to determine the association between fluoride and caries outcomes and calculated preventive fractions using these coefficients.
RESULTS: The odds of caries and of severe caries in 5-year-olds fell with increasing fluoride concentration in all SES quintiles (P < 0.001 to P = 0.003). There was a negative trend between increasing fluoride concentration and dental extractions (P < 0.001). Compared to PWS with <0.2 mg/l, CWF prevented 17% (95% confidence interval (CI): 5-27%) to 28% (95% CI: 24-32%) of caries (high-low SES) and 56% (95% CI: 25-74%) of dental extractions. The association between fluoride concentration and caries prevalence/severity varied by socioeconomic status (SES) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to fluoride in PWS appears highly protective against dental caries and reduces oral health inequalities.
METHODS: We estimated exposure to CWF and PWS fluoride concentrations from national monitoring data, using Geographic Information Systems and water supply boundaries, categorizing mean period exposure into <0.1, 0.1-<0.2, 0.2-<0.4, 0.4-<0.7 and ≥0.7 mg/l. We used area-level health outcome and confounder data in multivariable regression models to determine the association between fluoride and caries outcomes and calculated preventive fractions using these coefficients.
RESULTS: The odds of caries and of severe caries in 5-year-olds fell with increasing fluoride concentration in all SES quintiles (P < 0.001 to P = 0.003). There was a negative trend between increasing fluoride concentration and dental extractions (P < 0.001). Compared to PWS with <0.2 mg/l, CWF prevented 17% (95% confidence interval (CI): 5-27%) to 28% (95% CI: 24-32%) of caries (high-low SES) and 56% (95% CI: 25-74%) of dental extractions. The association between fluoride concentration and caries prevalence/severity varied by socioeconomic status (SES) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to fluoride in PWS appears highly protective against dental caries and reduces oral health inequalities.