Fluoridation policies Impact Dental Caries Prevalence Across Different Socioeconomic Communities

Wenjing Hu, Alana Odinocki, Archi Parikh

Project Smile Global

15 March, 2025

Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay, is one of the most prevalent public health issues worldwide, affecting individuals of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. Despite being largely preventable, cavities continue to be a major concern, especially in underserved communities where access to proper dental care is limited (Bagramian et al. 3). Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, plays a crucial role in preventing tooth decay by strengthening enamel and reducing the risk of cavities (Robinson et al. 268). Over the years, many public health initiatives, such as water fluoridation and fluoride-based dental products, have been implemented by different governments to combat dental caries. However, the impact of these fluoridation policies varies across different socioeconomic communities (Sexton et al. 74). This raises questions about accessibility, effectiveness, and the potential disparities in oral health outcomes. This article explores the role of fluoride in preventing tooth decay and examines how fluoridation policies influence oral health across diverse socioeconomic groups.

What is Fluoridation and How Does It Work?

Community water fluoridation (CWF) is the process of adjusting the natural fluoride concentration in public water supplies to an optimal level that helps prevent tooth decay (Horowitz 253). This public health measure has been widely recognized as a safe and effective way to reduce dental caries in populations. By ensuring consistent exposure to fluoride drinking water, CWF works to provide a cost-effective method to improve oral health on a large scale, particularly for individuals who may not have access to dental care or fluoride-containing products like toothpaste.

The reason that fluoride is so important for dental health is because fluoride plays a crucial role in strengthening teeth and preventing cavities (Ten Cate 161). Throughout the day, acids from bacteria in the mouth erode tooth enamel, leading to early stages of decay. When fluoride is present in the mouth, it attracts essential minerals like calcium and phosphate to rebuild and strengthen weakened enamel, making it more resistant to future acid attacks from bacteria (Ten Cate 162).  This process is known as remineralization and helps to reverse early decay before cavities form. In addition to remineralization, fluoride helps to inhibit bacterial growth by disrupting the metabolism of cavity-causing bacteria, reducing their ability to produce harmful acids (Ma et a.l 193) . This aspect is especially important in children, as it can ensure they have strong developing teeth, making them more resistant to caries (Kanduti et al. 136). Overall, fluoride’s protective properties collectively contribute to reducing the prevalence of dental caries and work to improve overall oral health in fluoridated communities.

How Socioeconomic Status Affects Dental Health?

​​Socioeconomic status (SES) plays a critical role in determining dental health outcomes, with low-income communities experiencing disproportionately higher rates of dental caries due to multiple contributing factors, including limited access to dental care, poor nutrition, and lack of oral health awareness. Research has shown that children from low-income families are significantly more likely to experience food insecurity, which is directly associated with poor dietary habits, including increased consumption of fast food and sugary beverages that contribute to cavities (Chi et al. 1599). In a study assessing SES, food insecurity, and fast-food consumption, 63% of the children surveyed were classified as low SES, and 30% of caregivers reported food insecurity, a known risk factor for poor oral health outcomes (Chi et al. 1600). Furthermore, children in low-income households were three times more likely to experience food insecurity than their higher-income counterparts, which in turn increases their risk of consuming more cariogenic foods that promote dental decay (Chi et al. 1601). Access to dental care is also a major barrier, as children from lower SES backgrounds are significantly more likely to lack dental insurance, leading to untreated cavities and more severe oral health issues over time (McLaren et al. 3). A study conducted in Calgary found that after the cessation of community water fluoridation, dental health disparities widened, with children in higher-deprivation areas showing significantly worse dental health outcomes than those in wealthier neighborhoods (McLaren et al. 6). Additionally, low levels of parental education, particularly among mothers, have been found to correlate with increased risks of both dental fluorosis, a condition caused by excessive fluoride intake during tooth development and untreated dental caries, highlighting the role of oral health awareness in shaping children's oral health habits (Pérez-Pérez et al. 67). These findings collectively emphasize the urgent need for targeted policies that improve access to dental care, promote healthier dietary choices, and enhance oral health education in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Does Fluoridation Reduce Socioeconomic Disparities?

Fluoridation is an essential public health measure that has been shown to reduce dental caries, particularly benefiting lower-income populations and mitigating socioeconomic disparities in oral health. Research has consistently demonstrated that communities with fluoridated water experience significantly lower rates of cavities, especially among socioeconomically disadvantaged children who face greater barriers to dental care (Shen et al. 2). A systematic review of intervention studies found that whole-population fluoridation programs consistently reduced dental health inequalities, whereas targeted interventions, such as individual fluoride applications or oral health education, were less effective in closing the SES-related gap (Shen et al. 6). This is because water fluoridation provides passive, cost-effective protection without requiring individual compliance or financial investment, making it particularly valuable for low-income groups who may not have access to regular dental care or fluoride treatments (Shen et al. 5). The impact of fluoridation on reducing disparities is further reinforced by a study analyzing the cessation of community water fluoridation in Calgary, which found that after fluoridation was discontinued, socioeconomic disparities in dental health worsened, particularly among children without dental insurance and those living in high-deprivation areas (McLaren et al. 6). Specifically, children in non-fluoridated areas showed significantly higher rates of decayed, missing, and filled teeth compared to those in fluoridated regions, highlighting fluoridation's role in equalizing oral health outcomes across different income levels (McLaren et al. 7). However, despite the overwhelming benefits, research also indicates that low-income populations may be at greater risk of dental fluorosis due to excessive fluoride exposure from multiple sources, such as fluoridated salt, toothpaste, and naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water (Pérez-Pérez et al. 67). A study in Mexico found that 95.7% of children in a low-income community had some degree of fluorosis, with 45.2% experiencing severe cases, and the risk was significantly higher among children whose mothers had lower levels of education (Pérez-Pérez et al. 68). While fluoridation effectively reduces dental caries and helps bridge the oral health gap between SES groups, these findings highlight the importance  of regulating fluoride exposure to prevent overconsumption in vulnerable communities.

Controversies and Opposition to Fluoridation 

Despite the widespread acceptance of fluoridation as an effective health measure, its use has been met with controversy. One of the most debated aspects of community water fluoridation is its potential health effects beyond dental health. Some studies have raised concerns about fluoride’s impact on the thyroid gland, particularly in individuals with iodine deficiency. A 2018 study on fluoride exposure and thyroid function found that 17.8% of the Canadian population in the study fell into the moderate-to-severe iodine-deficient category, making them more vulnerable to fluoride's effects on thyroid function (Malin et al. 667). Excessive fluoride intake has been linked to reduced thyroid function, which can contribute to symptoms such as fatigue, weight gain, and chronic metabolic and bone diseases (Ferreira et al. 2).

Additionally, emerging research has examined fluoride’s possible effects on neurodevelopment. A few studies suggest a correlation between high fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children, raising concerns about cognitive development. However, many of these studies focus on regions with naturally high fluoride levels that exceed recommended concentrations, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the effects of fluoridated water in optimal doses (Taylor et al. 282). Leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), maintain that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is safe and effective. Nevertheless, these ongoing debates highlight the need for continued research to ensure public confidence in fluoridation policies.

Another point of contention is the ethical dilemma surrounding fluoridation and individual choice. Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) is the process of adjusting fluoride levels in public water supplies to a concentration that helps prevent dental caries on a population-wide scale. According to the CDC, the optimal level for drinking water is 0.7 milligrams of fluoride for every litre of water (Centre for Disease Control). Opponents argue that adding fluoride to public water supplies constitutes a form of mass medication without individual consent. Unlike personal choices such as using fluoridated toothpaste or receiving fluoride treatments, water fluoridation is an involuntary measure that affects entire populations, regardless of personal preference (Cheng et al.). Further, some bioethicists argue that CWF raises deeper ethical concerns because it involves public health ethics rather than individual clinical ethics, meaning that its justification requires not only scientific evidence but also a robust ethical framework​ (Song and Kim 1). From a public health perspective, fluoridation is seen as a necessary intervention similar to fortifying foods with essential vitamins and minerals. However, unlike these interventions, fluoridation removes individual choice, making ethical scrutiny even more critical. Proponents argue that the collective benefits, particularly for vulnerable populations who lack access to regular dental care, outweigh concerns about autonomy. Public trust and procedural justice also play a key role in the fluoridation debate. Research suggests that fluoridation policies should be developed through transparent decision-making processes that involve public input and ethical accountability, rather than being imposed without democratic participation (Song and Kim, 1)​. This debate remains central to fluoridation policy discussions, particularly in regions where public trust in government health initiatives is low.

Alternative fluoride delivery methods exist for communities that oppose fluoridation or seek additional preventive measures. One widely used approach is fluoride varnish, a topical application applied by dental professionals, which provides a highly concentrated fluoride dose to strengthen enamel and prevent cavities (Moss and Zero 277). Another strategy involves distributing fluoride toothpaste and promoting oral health education programs to encourage regular use. While these methods can be effective, they require active participation and access to dental resources, which may still pose a challenge for low-income communities. Unlike water fluoridation, which passively benefits entire populations, these interventions rely on individual compliance, making them less effective in reaching at-risk groups (Song and Kim 2). Ultimately, a combination of fluoridation and alternative strategies may be the most effective approach in ensuring widespread protection against dental caries.

In conclusion, fluoridation remains a cornerstone of modern public health efforts to improve dental health, particularly in underserved communities where access to dental care is limited. By strengthening enamel, reducing bacterial activity, and promoting remineralization, fluoride has been proven to be an effective tool in reducing cavity rates across different socioeconomic groups. However, fluoridation alone is not a comprehensive solution to oral health disparities. While it provides a cost-effective, passive method of cavity prevention, broader efforts are needed to address the root causes of oral health inequities, such as access to affordable dental care, nutrition education, and preventive services. The concerns raised by fluoridation opponents, including potential health risks and ethical considerations, highlight the need for ongoing scientific research and policy refinement. Striking a balance between maximizing public health benefits and addressing individual autonomy concerns will be key in shaping the future of fluoridation policies. Ultimately, a multifaceted approach that includes fluoridation, targeted public health initiatives, and accessible dental care will be essential in closing the gap in oral health outcomes and ensuring that all individuals, regardless of socioeconomic status, have the opportunity to maintain good dental health.

Works Cited

Austin Park Dental. “Fluoride.” Austin Park Dental, 26 Apr. 2024. www.austinparkdental.com/procedures/pediatric-dentistry/fluoride.

Bagramian, Robert A et al. “The global increase in dental caries. A pending public health crisis.” American journal of dentistry vol. 22, no. 1, 2009, pp. 3-8.

Centre for Disease Control. “About Community Water Fluoridation.” Community Water Fluoridation, 15 May 2024, www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/about/index.html.

Cheng, K. K., et al. “Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies.” BMJ, vol. 335, no. 7622, Oct. 2007, pp. 699–702, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39318.562951.be.

Chi, Donald L., et al. “Dietary Research to Reduce Children’s Oral Health Disparities: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Analysis of Socioeconomic Status, Food Insecurity, and Fast-Food Consumption.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 115, no. 10, Apr. 2015, pp. 1599–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.02.011.

Ferreira, Maria Karolina Martins, et al. “Is There Any Association between Fluoride Exposure and Thyroid Function Modulation? A Systematic Review.” PloS One, vol. 19, no. 4, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301911.

Horowitz, Herschel S. “The effectiveness of community water fluoridation in the United     States.” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, vol. 56, no. 5, Dec. 1996, pp. 253–258, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02448.x. 

Kanduti, Domen, et al. “Fluoride: A review of use and effects on health.” Materia Socio Medica, vol. 28, no. 2, 2016, pp. 133–137, https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2016.28.133-137. 

Ma, Haili, et al. “Effects of fluoride on bacterial growth and its gene/protein expression.”  Chemosphere, vol. 100, Apr. 2014, pp. 190–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.11.032. 

Malin, Ashley J., et al. “Fluoride Exposure and Thyroid Function among Adults Living in Canada: Effect Modification by Iodine Status.” Environment International, vol. 121, Dec. 2018, pp. 667–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.026.

McLaren, Lindsay, et al. “Equity in Children’s Dental Caries Before and After Cessation of Community Water Fluoridation: Differential Impact by Dental Insurance Status and Geographic Material Deprivation.” International Journal for Equity in Health, vol. 15, no. 1, Feb. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0312-1.

Moss, Mark E., and Domenick T. Zero. “25 - Fluoride and Caries Prevention.” ScienceDirect, edited by Ana Karina Mascarenhas et al., W.B. Saunders, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 277–95, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323554848000253.

Pérez-Pérez, N., et al. “Factors Affecting Dental Fluorosis in Low Socioeconomic Status Children in Mexico.” PubMed, vol. 34, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1922/cdh_3981perez-perez06.

Robinson, C., et al. “The effect of fluoride on the developing tooth.” Caries Research, vol. 38, no. 3, 2004, pp. 268–276, https://doi.org/10.1159/000077766. 

Sexton, Christopher T, et al. “Socio‐economic status and access to fluoridated water in Queensland: An Ecological Data Linkage Study.” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 220, no. 2, 27 Dec. 2023, pp. 74–79, https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.52196. 

Shen, Anqi, et al. “Systematic Review of Intervention Studies Aiming at Reducing Inequality in Dental Caries Among Children.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 3, Feb. 2021, p. 1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031300.

Song, Youngha, and Junhewk Kim. “Community Water Fluoridation: Caveats to Implement Justice in Public Oral Health.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 5, Mar. 2021, p. 2372, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052372.

Taylor, Kyla W., et al. “Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores.” JAMA Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Jan. 2025, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542.

Ten Cate, J. M. “Contemporary perspective on the use of fluoride products in caries prevention.” British Dental Journal, vol. 214, no. 4, Feb. 2013, pp. 161–167, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.162.  “water from a faucet pours into a cup held by an outstretched hand.” Community Water Fluoridation, www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html.