Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries
Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor,Tanya Walsh,Sharon R Lewis,Philip Riley,Dwayne Boyers,Janet E Clarkson,Helen V Worthington,Anne-Marie Glenny,Lucy O'Malley
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010856.pub3
IF: 8.4
2024-10-05
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation (CWF) is currently practised in about 25 countries; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. CWF is of interest to health professionals, policymakers and the public. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015, focusing on contemporary evidence about the effects of CWF on dental caries. To evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes for the prevention of dental caries. To evaluate the association of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) with dental fluorosis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases up to 16 August 2023. We also searched two clinical trials registers and conducted backward citation searches. We included populations of all ages. For our first objective (effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes on dental caries), we included prospective controlled studies comparing populations receiving fluoridated water with those receiving non‐fluoridated or naturally low‐fluoridated water. To evaluate change in caries status, studies measured caries both within three years of a change in fluoridation status and at the end of study follow‐up. For our second objective (association of water fluoridation with dental fluorosis), we included any study design, with concurrent control, comparing populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. In this update, we did not search for or include new evidence for this objective. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For our first objective, we included the following outcomes as change from baseline: decayed, missing or filled teeth ('dmft' for primary and 'DMFT' for permanent teeth); decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces ('dmfs' for primary and 'DMFS' for permanent teeth); proportion of caries‐free participants for both primary and permanent dentition; adverse events. We stratified the results of the meta‐analyses according to whether data were collected before or after the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste in 1975. For our second objective, we included dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern, or any level of fluorosis), and any other adverse events reported by the included studies. We included 157 studies. All used non‐randomised designs. Given the inherent risks of bias in these designs, particularly related to management of confounding factors and blinding of outcome assessors, we downgraded the certainty of all evidence for these risks. We downgraded some evidence for imprecision, inconsistency or both. Evidence from older studies may not be applicable to contemporary societies, and we downgraded older evidence for indirectness. Water fluoridation initiation (21 studies) Based on contemporary evidence (after 1975), the initiation of CWF may lead to a slightly greater change in dmft over time (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.03 to 0.52; P = 0.09; 2 studies, 2908 children; low‐certainty evidence). This equates to a difference in dmft of approximately one‐quarter of a tooth in favour of CWF; this effect estimate includes the possibility of benefit and no benefit. Contemporary evidence (after 1975) was also available for change in DMFT (4 studies, 2856 children) and change in DMFS (1 study, 343 children); we were very uncertain of these findings. CWF may lead to a slightly greater change over time in the proportion of caries‐free children with primary dentition (MD ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.01; P = 0.12; 2 studies, 2908 children), and permanent dentition (MD ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.01; P = 0.14; 2 studies, 2348 children). These low‐certainty findings (a 4 percentage point difference and 3 percentage point difference for primary and permanent dentition, respectively) favoured CWF. These effect estimates include the possibility of benefit and no benefit. No contemporary data were available for adverse effects. Because of very low‐certainty evidence, we were unsure of the size of effects of CWF when using older evidence (from 1975 or earlier) on all outcomes: change in dmft (5 studies, 5709 children), change in DMFT (3 studies, 5623 children), change in proportion of caries‐free children with primary dentition (5 studies, 6278 children) or permanent dentition (4 studies, 6219 children), or adverse effects (2 studies, 7800 children). Only one study, conducted after 1975, reported disparities according to socioeconomic status, with no evidence that deprivation influenced the relationship between water exposure and caries status. Water fluoridation cessation (1 study) Because of very low‐certainty evidence, we could not determine if the cessation of CWF affected DMFS (1 study conducted after 1975; 2994 children). Data were not available for other review out -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal