ReviewArchives of toxicology2021
Contribution to the ongoing discussion on fluoride toxicity.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Between evidence and allegation: factual accuracy in discussions on fluoride toxicity and research integrity.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Causes Dental Developmental Anomalies: Underrecognized Risk of Fluoride Bioaccumulation.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Developmental vulnerability to fluoride toxicity: enamel and clearance differences in adolescent versus mature mice.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Fluoride intake during pregnancy: calculation of realistic exposure scenarios for individual risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- The sugar industry's efforts to manipulate research on fluoride effectiveness and toxicity: a ninety-year history.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- Article
- Fluoride.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Mothers' Sources of Child Fluoride Information and Misinformation From Social Connections.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s, there have been frequent and sometimes heated discussions regarding its benefits and risks. In a recently published review, we addressed the question if current exposure levels in Europe represent a risk to human health. This review was discussed in an editorial asking why we did not calculate benchmark doses (BMD) of fluoride neurotoxicity for humans. Here, we address the question, why it is problematic to calculate BMDs based on the currently available data. Briefly, the conclusions of the available studies are not homogeneous, reporting negative as well as positive results; moreover, the positive studies lack control of confounding factors such as the influence of well-known neurotoxicants. We also discuss the limitations of several further epidemiological studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria of our review. Finally, it is important to not only focus on epidemiological studies. Rather, risk analysis should consider all available data, including epidemiological, animal, as well as in vitro studies. Despite remaining uncertainties, the totality of evidence does not support the notion that fluoride should be considered a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.