A blind caries and fluorosis prevalence study of school‐children in naturally fluoridated and nonfluoridated townships of Morayshire, Scotland
Authors: Stephen Kenneth W. , Macpherson Lorna M. D. , Gilmour W. Harper , Stuart Russell A. M. , Merrett Martyn C. W. 
Published: March 2003

Abstract Objectives: To undertake a blind caries and fluorosis prevalence study of Grade 1 (aged 5/6 yr) and Grade 4–7 (aged 8–12 yr) children from naturally water‐fluoridated (1 ppm, since 1985) Burghead, Findhorn & Kinloss (F), and nearby nonfluoridated Buckie & Portessie (N‐F), in rural Morayshire, Scotland.Methods:  A blind clinical (+ 10% repeats) caries study of the above townships' 5/6‐yr‐old lifetime (15 F; 43 N‐F), and 8–12‐yr‐old lifetime (55 F; 136 N‐F)/school‐lifetime (31 F; 37 N‐F) residents was undertaken following bussing of these children to a common examination site in close‐by Elgin Town Hall. Initially, each child was asked about their own perception of the aesthetics of their maxillary front teeth. Fluorosis was assessed clinically using the TF Index, as well as photographically − for later blind scoring (+ 10% repeats for lifetime 8–12‐yr‐olds) of slides by four dental and two lay ‘jurors’, alongside a now‐established UK ‘bench‐mark’ mildly mottled (TFI = 2), fluorosis comparator slide, judged in previous studies to be aesthetically lay‐acceptable. In addition, by parental questionnaire, information was sought concerning their child's fluoride supplement and dentifrice usage histories. Results: For 5/6‐yr‐olds, mean primary caries scores were 96.0% less in fluoridated than nonfluoridated subjects (P < 0.01). In 8–12‐yr‐olds, DMFT values favoured water‐fluoridated subjects; their caries‐free trend was significant (P < 0.001 overall). Clinically, 33% of all lifetime F subjects and 18% of all N‐F pupils had fluorosed maxillary anterior teeth (P = 0.045), but no statistically significant difference was found between the 7% F and 3% N‐F subjects with TFI scores > 2 (P = 0.25). Photographically, ‘jury’ mottling assessment (+ 10% repeats) of projected slides resulted in at least 1 : 6 positive scores in 43.6% of F and 30.9% of N‐F pupils, albeit they unanimously scored only nine F and five N‐F children as having fluorosed teeth (P < 0.01). In no case did all members score TFI > 2. Dental and lay scorers rated TFI = ½ in only a further 9.1% and 5.5% of F subjects, respectively, compared to 0.7% and 1.5% respectively of N‐F pupils. Again, TFI > 2 was scored unanimously in no child. No differences were found regarding the children's own degree of anterior tooth aesthetic nonacceptability between F (11%) and N‐F (12%) prevalence (P = 0.75). Finally, only one F child had taken F supplements and, while 26 N‐F had used F drops, no significant relationship was found between their usage and TFI values in the latter group (P = 0.49). Additionally, no relationship was noted between clinical TFI scores and the age at which parents stated fluoridated dentifrice toothbrushing commenced, between 0 and 24 + months of age. Conclusions: Considerable caries benefit has accrued to those Morayshire rural children who have received naturally fluoridated water (at 1 ppm) throughout their lives, as compared to their socioeconomically similar, nonfluoridated rural counterparts. Furthermore, in spite of all but two subjects claiming to have brushed regularly with fluoridated dentifrice (and no evidence of the availability of nonfluoridated toothpaste being purchasable in the five townships), only borderline mild fluorosis disadvantages have been noted clinically, and none by the subjects' own aesthetic perceptions. Finally, no evidence was found to suggest any delay in permanent tooth eruption patterns of the F subjects. It would seem appropriate therefore, that adjustment of Scots' drinking waters' natural fluoride levels to 1 ppm should be pursued to extend similar dental advantages to the vast majority of that population (both young and old) which, it is well documented, has the worst dental health of mainland UK.