Fluoridation is a technique of adding fluoride to public water supply systems to improve a population’s oral health. The process was first introduced in the 1940s and has become a subject of heated debate ever since. Fluoride affects teeth systematically and topically by aiding in teeth development and strengthening the teeth’s surface. However, it has some drawbacks, resulting in several arguments regarding its essence among pro-fluoridation and anti-fluoridation sides. This paper examines the potential benefits and downsides of water-system fluoridation and presents opinions tabled by supporters and its opposition. It is critical to approach the issue of fluoridation from a flexible perspective and consider evidence from both parties to make an informed decision about a community’s oral health. However, city council officials can reap the benefits of fluoridation by addressing and dealing with its limitations.
The Topical and Systemic Implications of Fluoride on Teeth
Fluoride contributes to teeth development depending on the site where it is applied and the mode of entry into the system. Topical fluoride acts directly on the teeth and is commonly found in gels, varnishes, rinses, and toothpaste. Fluoride works topically by strengthening the enamel and preventing decay (Ten Cate et al., 2019). When fluoride comes into contact with the outer surface of teeth, it forms a chemical bond with the enamel to make it more resistant to acids and factors that cause cavities. Fluoride also contributes to re-mineralization, which repairs small decayed areas of teeth and prevents further destruction. Fluoridating water resources can help improve oral health, reduce the incidence of dental caries, and protect children from dental disease, as most of them do not clean their teeth appropriately due to the inability to reach fissures and pits (Jullien, 2021). Topical fluoride is effective in minimizing teeth sensitivity. Thus, fluoridation can enable community members to benefit from its unique abilities.
On the other hand, systemic fluoride acts after it has been ingested into the body and absorbed. Systemic fluoride is abundant in most public water supply systems, foods, and drinks created using fluoridated water (Marthaler, 2019). Systemic fluoride integrates with other chemical elements that facilitate teeth development to make teeth more robust and more resistant to cavities and decay. After ingestion, fluoride is absorbed into the bloodstream, which travels to the teeth through capillaries into the enamel (Jullien, 2021). Its mechanisms of action also include making teeth more resistant to acidity, thus preventing the enamel’s corrosion-associated dental diseases. Systemic fluoride is similarly effective in preventing dental carries and improving oral health. However, it is more beneficial for small children because it strengthens their teeth before they emerge. Thus, it is essential in regions with limited access to dental care.
Issues Associated with Fluoridating Community Water Systems
Fluoridating community water systems can result in problems due to health concerns, as flouring is closely linked to various health conditions. For example, fluorosis is characterized by the intense discoloration of teeth due to increased exposure to fluorine (Cury et al., 2019). Fluorosis can be severe and result in dental problems in the later stages of an individual’s life. Fluoride causes hypersensitivity in some people and can result in reactions such as pain, discomfort, redness, and itching. In addition, some studies suggest that fluoride exposure is associated with an increased risk of thyroid disorders such as hypothyroidism (Cury et al., 2019). Thus, fluoridating community water resources might cause grave concerns for individuals already suffering from thyroid diseases and those at high risk of developing the disease due to their family history.
Community water system fluoridation can stir economic, ethical, and legal issues that negatively affect local communities and authorities. Fluoridation is a costly process that incurs substantial costs, especially in large communities (Walker et al., 2020). Associated costs include finances and time spent on chemicals, labor, equipment, and ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Thus, the high costs can discourage long-term investments in program execution. Similarly, fluoridating community water systems facilitates legal and ethical issues. Some might argue that it is a method of forced medication and a violation of individuals’ freedoms because it infringes on their ability to make medical choices (Walker et al., 2020). Thus, it is advisable to consider these factors before making a decision.
Arguments Presented by the Pro-Fluoridation Side
Individuals supporting the fluoridation of public water systems base their arguments on its potential health benefits. Fluoridation minimizes dental carries’ incidence rates in local communities by ensuring higher levels of oral health. Thus, proponents argue it is one of the safest and most effective solutions to oral health issues in low-income communities (Jullien, 2021). Similarly, its effectiveness in catering to dental issues in populations makes it cost-effective in areas with limited access to dental clinics and care. Moreover, individuals supporting the fluoridation of water systems suggest that scientific evidence backs the efficacy and safety of large-scale fluoridation (Walker et al., 2020). Decades of research have found no significant health risks associated with fluorides, most of which contribute to oral health. Thus, fluoridation is necessary to enhance public health and improve individuals’ comfort.
Arguments Tabled by the Anti-Fluoridation Side
Public water system fluoridation opponents have several reasons why they oppose such initiatives, including insufficient evidence, health risks, and ethical issues. For example, although several studies support water system fluoridation, critics argue that these studies focus on benefits and neglect potential hazards (Ten Cate et al., 2019). Moreover, some individuals suggest that the available studies are inconclusive and lack the data to develop accurate inferences and conclusions. Thus, they propose avoidance due to the fear of the unknown. Anti-fluoridation parties cite health risks generally surrounding its implications on people with thyroid disorders, bone fractures, and fluorosis. Moreover, they raise ethical concerns regarding the morality of forcing individuals to partake in medication and infringing on their freedoms and autonomy. According to Walker et al. (2020), the opposition argues that this might create room for other forced government actions on society, some of which may not be beneficial. Thus, they argue that it is best to facilitate other solutions to oral health than fluoridating public water systems.
Conclusion
Fluoridation is among numerous public-system water treatment techniques and a widely adopted solution to enhancing a population’s oral health. However, research reveals that increased exposure to fluorides can negatively affect individuals with a history of thyroid disease in their families and people living with it. Thus, it would be unfair to subject them to suffering for others’ benefit. Additionally, opponents of community water system fluoridation argue that it goes against ethical values of autonomy and limits individuals’ freedoms. However, fluoridation is associated with positive outcomes such as developing strong teeth and reduced incidence of oral diseases and dental caries. In addition, most scientific studies suggest that fluoridation is a safe and adequate water treatment method because of its scalability. Therefore, a solution that council officials can adopt to reap its benefits and avoid the potential harm of exposure is releasing fluorides into water systems intermittently. Regardless, it is best to address potential issues and conduct more research to assure the general public of their safety and positive development.
References
Cury, J. A., Ricomini-Filho, A. P., Berti, F. L. P., & Tabchoury, C. P. (2019). Systemic effects (risks) of water fluoridation. Brazilian Dental Journal, 30, 421-428. Web.
Jullien, S. (2021). Prophylaxis of caries with fluoride for children under five years. BMC Pediatrics, 21(1), 1-11. Web.
Marthaler, T. M. (2019). Fluoride supplements for systemic effects in caries prevention. In Continuing evaluation of the use of fluorides (pp. 33-59). CRC Press.
Ten Cate, J. M., & Buzalaf, M. A. R. (2019). Fluoride mode of action: Once there was an observant dentist…Journal of Dental Research, 98(7), 725-730. Web.
Walker, T., Dickes, L., & Crouch, E. (2020). Community water fluoridation perceptions and practice in the United States: challenges in governance and implementation. Water Policy, 22(3), 365-375. Web.