ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2026
Water Fluoridation: Institutional Arrangements and Regulatory Mechanisms in Three Selected Countries.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Community water fluoridation policy and population oral health: a policy analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and compare regulatory processes for quality control of community water fluoridation (CWF) in three selected countries.
methodsDocumentary analysis of printed and online resources; correspondence with key informants from Brazil, the United States of America (USA), and England; countries with tradition in water fluoridation implementation for dental caries prevention.
resultsThe target and maximum allowable concentration of fluoride in drinking water was 0.7/4.0 mg/L in the USA; 0.7/1.5 mg/L in Brazil, and 1.0/1.5 mg/L in England. Concentration monitoring by the water companies varied; collection of samples at several points of the distribution network was required in England and the USA, while Brazil demanded only one point at the end of the water treatment. England and the USA relied on data generated by companies responsible for water treatment, while Brazil adopted an independent surveillance system that used data collected in the distribution network by the local health authority. A common point between the USA and Brazil was the construction of a nationwide information system under principles of health surveillance that could be disseminated for stakeholders. In England, annual quality reports for each water supply zone were accessible but not routinely collated and published.
conclusionInstitutional arrangements, regulatory mechanisms, and control, surveillance, and information disclosure procedures varied substantially among countries. There is potential for exchanging procedural and outcome information in order to improve the performance of fluoridation services.
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.