The graph below illustrates their findings for these forms of dental fluorosis.So, if we consider only those forms of dental fluorosis the review considers of aesthetic concern then calculated prevalence due to CWF amount to only 12% – 10% = 2% of people (using the reviews definition of non-fluoridated) or 12% – 9% = 3% of people using a more realistic concentration of 0.2 ppm for non-fluoridated.He has simply taken the reported estimate of dental fluorosis for a fluoride intake of 0.7 ppm (the concentration in fluoridated drinking water in NZ) without taking into account the prevalence of dental fluorosis in unfluoridated areas. The review does, however, calculate estimates of dental fluorosis for different drinking water concentrations and we can draw some proper conclusions from these. The review defines this as all the forms of dental fluorosis according to the Dean Index – from questionable to serious.(See for a discussion of the different forms of dental fluorosis).
The review acknowledges that their inclusion of mild forms of dental fluorosis in their definition of dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern is questionable, saying Most studies do not consider the mild forms undesirable.Once again this anti-fluoridation propagandist has been caught misrepresenting the scientific literature on this issue.And his misleading press release is being touted as gospel truth by anti-fluoridation groups in NZ and the USA.It is likely that most of the increase in “dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern” arising from community water fluoridation occurs in the mild forms.So my suggestion of a 2 or 3% increase in “dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern” will be an overestimation.