Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42534894›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026

Community water fluoridation policy and population oral health: a policy analysis.

Josefine Ortiz Wolfe, Matt Jacob, Susan Fisher-Owens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Josefine Ortiz WolfeCollege of Natural Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
Matt JacobJacob Strategies, Arlington, VA, United States.
Susan Fisher-OwensUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dental caries (tooth decay) remains the most common noncommunicable disease worldwide and continues to impose significant dental and systemic health and economic burdens despite being largely preventable. Untreated disease contributes to pain, infection, reduced quality of life, and increased demand for restorative dental care. Governments, therefore, face policy decisions regarding population-level prevention strategies. This analysis evaluates policy options related to population-level fluoride exposure, including maintaining existing community water fluoridation (CWF) programs, expanding fluoridation coverage, discontinuing fluoridation in favor of clinical prevention strategies, and implementing alternative delivery mechanisms such as salt fluoridation. Drawing on Bardach's Eightfold Path for policy analysis, options are assessed using public health policy criteria, including health impact, equity implications, economic considerations, safety, and implementation feasibility. Evidence shows that CWF can reduce caries prevalence and treatment needs at the population level, particularly in communities with limited access to preventive dental care. Economic evaluations indicate that fluoridation reduces expenditures associated with dental treatment. However, policy feasibility varies depending on infrastructure, governance systems, and public health capacity. For policymakers, fluoridation represents one component of broader health prevention strategies that combine population-level prevention with improved access to preventive services.

Indexed as

community water fluoridationdental caries preventionoral health equityoral health policy analysispopulation oral healthpublic health policy analysis

Identifiers

PMID42534894
PMCPMC13422374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.