Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40628571›Full record

ArticleCurrent problems in pediatric and adolescent health care2025

How the public's knowledge, attitudes, and practice intersect with scientific evidence about fluoride.

Christine Till, Jana El-Sabbagh, Carly Goodman, Mikel Subiza-Pérez, Meaghan Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christine TillFaculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: ctill@yorku.ca.
Jana El-SabbaghFaculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Carly GoodmanFaculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mikel Subiza-PérezDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology and Research Methods, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain; Bradford Institute for Health Research, Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK; Spanish Consortium for Research on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, Spain; Biogipuzkoa Health Research Institute, Group of Public Health and Environmental Epidemiology, Paseo Doctor Begiristain s/n, Donostia-San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa, Spain.
Meaghan HallFaculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

Fluoride in Tooth Dentin and Neurodevelopmental Outcome in a Canadian CohortR01ES030365 · NIEHS · YORK UNIVERSITY · PI LANPHEAR, BRUCE P, TILL, CHRISTINE · 2019 to 2024
$2.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES030365
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For over 75 years, community water fluoridation has been implemented as a public health strategy to reduce dental caries. While early studies suggested dramatic reductions in dental caries, recent evidence indicates that the benefits of community water fluoridation are more modest. Concurrently, concerns have grown over rising rates of enamel fluorosis and possible links between fluoride intake and lowered intelligence in children and thyroid hormone disruption, even at exposure levels found in fluoridated regions. This first part of this paper discusses the historical context and current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of community water fluoridation and safety of systemic fluoride. The second part presents findings from a fluoride survey conducted with 8011 adults in Canada and the U.S. The survey assessed knowledge about fluoride, public perceptions of the risks and benefits of community water fluoridation, and fluoride use with young children. Overall, 60 % of respondents correctly identified why fluoride is added to drinking water. Knowledge of community water fluoridation was higher among older, more educated, and White participants. Among those familiar with community water fluoridation, 51 % expressed support, 27 % opposed it, and 25 % were neutral. Support was primarily driven by confidence in its safety and benefits, while opposition was driven by safety concerns and perceived violations of personal freedom. Trust in public health officials was higher among supporters (87 %) compared with non-supporters of community water fluoridation (52.1 %). When presented with hypothetical risk-benefit scenarios, participants consistently prioritized the prevention of potential health risks, such as reduced IQ, over the relatively modest dental benefit of preventing one cavity. The survey also revealed that most parents report using more fluoride toothpaste for young children than recommended, suggesting a gap in adherence to safe fluoride use guidelines. Our findings highlight mixed public views on community water fluoridation and knowledge gaps surrounding fluoride toothpaste use with children, underscoring the need for clear, evidence-based communication about fluoride exposures.

Indexed as

Dental CariesFluoridationFluoridesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCanadaChildFemaleFluorosis, DentalHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic HealthPublic OpinionUnited StatesFluoridesFluoridePublic attitudesSurveyWater fluoridation

Identifiers

PMID40628571
PMCPMC13147203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.