Talk:Dental fluorosis

message: I just deleted the following sentence in the introduction:
" and it is linked to bone & thyroid cancer, osteoporosis, bone fractures, dental fluorosis, it dumbs you down, causes mental disorders, sterilisation, organ failure. 
The nazis used it in their water supply to keep the public docile and more easily controlled!"
While the first part lacks any citations, everything after "it dumbs you down" cannot be meant serious. See the second sentence.
I almost deleted the following from the external links section: "Fluoride does not reduce cavities and does causes(sic!) brittle bones and a soft brain http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/floride-does-not-reduce-cavitie"
I'm not familiar with the criteria for deleting external links so I left it in. I'm not here to take a stance on the debate as well, but even if you are of the opinion described in that article, I suggest taking it down because it makes the whole thing (and wikipedia) look highly dubious.
 John M. Snow (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I just saw this article:
Fluorosis: A New Model and New Insights
J.D. Bartlett, S.E. Dwyer, E. Beniash, Z. Skobe, and T.L. Payne-Ferreira
J Dent Res 2005;84 832-836
http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/9/832?etoc
that probably has bearing on this issue.
Bedrupsbaneman 09:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bartlett et al 2005 

message: I found a few sources that say flouridation *reduces* dental caries, which leads me to suspect that fluorosis does *not* come hand in hand with dental caries. The sources:
this one says "fluoridation and fluoride toothpastes both substantially reduce the prevalence and incidence of dental caries."
this other one says that fluorosis has a "mild association with lower caries". 
this last one says "Exposure to fluoride throughout life is effective in preventing dental caries."
Given that all the sources (including others) that i've seen say that caries are negatively associated with fluorosis, i'm going to delete the comment about carries. Fresheneesz 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dental caries

message: The article as written is blatantly biased. It only cites the same anti-fluoridation group over and over again, with a single stat from the CDC, accompanied by unsupported editorialization. I guess some people have no shame.
129.116.50.14 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV 

message: Noticed some really sloppy sentences in this entry. For example: "If the food was watered with fluoridated water or the water mixed in pop has been it is easy for children and adults to consume large amount of fluoride leading to fluorosis." I think im just going to cut the offending sentences. PGRandom 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: Despite the claim that flourosis occurs only in children 2 "The prevalence of fluorosis in permanent teeth in areas with fluoridated water has increased from about 10-15% in the 1940s to as high as 70% in recent studies..."
What's the 2 for? - Slash
:I'm not sure if it is trying to refer to the second reference on the list, but thanks for pointing out another error because it is misleading to say that anyone claims fluorosis occurs only in children.  You can see effects of fluorosis in adults, but the overexposure to fluoride would have had to occur during tooth development. - Dozenist talk 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey, about a wierd bug

message: "If the water supply is fluoridated at the rate of 1ppm, it is necessary to consume one litre of water in order to take in 1mg of fluoride. It is highly improbable a person will receive more than the tolerable upper limit from consuming optimally fluoridated water alone.";
That sentence assumes that water fluoridation is optimal.  A cause that is still up for debate.
What about:
"… controllen fluoridated water alone."?
I could not find the adverb of 'control', but I think that works.
I've left the article as it is, for the time being.
:I have edited thearticle, now, accordiy.Rob Del Monte 12:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it back.  "Controllen" is not a word, and "optimal" refers to the amount necessary to reduce caries while also lowering the incidence of dental fluorosis.  The term is used by many health organizations.  Thus, it should stay as is. - Dozenist talk 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias pov 

message: What realy causes severe dental fluorosis, many articles I read talks about fluorosis caused by too much consumption of fluoridated foods/water.........Others says too much consumption of the 'F' element reduces the risk of getting severe dental fluorosis............... whats the real thing ? I think this is subjected to more research.. MABHENA MB, UNIVERSITY OF VENDA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.13.185.253 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLUOROSIS A BIT CONFUSING ISSUE! 

message: First, I'm not convinced the images in this article are being used properly: the source website does not specifically mention that the images can be freely reused.
Question: in the first image (mild fluorosis where the white-speckled teeth are shown), is the effect of fluorosis the white speckles or the yellowish background? That is, does fluorosis cause darker-colored teeth except in a few spots where it "missed" the teeth which are a normal white color, or does it cause bright white speckles on normally darker teeth. The article does not make this clear (though it is sort of addressed in the section on Dean's index--or Deans index?). 128.197.81.41 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To your second question, the white speckles are the resulting effect of the mild fluorosis. The yellowish background is the normal tooth color.  To the first question, I am uncertain whether the pictures should be freely used here. It looks suspicious to me. - Dozenist talk 12:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification 

message: This article used to have much better and accurate photos of more typical cases. Or would you say that the current pic looks much like this? The current pic in the article is very old and b/w, so ancient it makes it look as if a side-effect of fluorosis would be one's gum turning totally black. Just a misleading, bad pic of an untypical case, while the pic at the link I gave looks much more like a typical case. What happened to those modern digital photos that used to be in this article anyway? --79.193.123.99 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: File:Fluorosis-mild.jpg and :File:Fluorosis-severe.jpg were removed because they were copyright violations; please see  and , respectively. I agree that http://www.fluoride-history.de/fluorosis3.jpg would be a much better image of severe fluorosis; however, it's also copyrighted so we can't use it. I also agree that :File:FluorosisFromNIH.jpg is so horribly misleading that it's worse than having no image at all, so I just now removed the image from the article. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: The CDC poll on fluorosis prevalence is outdated. Here is a newer CDC poll: http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2007orleans/techprogram/abstract_92598.htm
As of 2004, 48.42% of humans 12 to 15 have fluorosis!
If no one gets around to updating the chart, I will look into how to do it myself.
That chart focuses on wee ones younger than 12 to 15 years old. You might want to hold off on modifying it. Docjay8406 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Data from the CDC 

message: It is not clear from the introduction if fluorosis can also occur in adults ?
In a simple question:Is it true that as an adult you can eat 1 tube of fluoride toothpaste every day and still you will not get fluorosis ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.72.183 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  fluorosis impossible in adults 

message: According to the CDC, most people who have fluorosis have it "severe". According to , 30-50% of youths aged 12-19 in the years 1999-2004 were suffering of "severe" fluorosis, compared to only 2-10% with "very mild and mild" cases. Therefore, the severe photo should be at the top. Also, many images of mostly *BLACK* teeth you'll find when googling for dental fluorosis        suggest that what's presented here as a "severe" case (and upon its first introduction was immediately removed as an allegedly unrealistic, propagandistic "scare image", even) is, with its *YELLOW* and slightly brownish teeth, actually a rather moderate one. The way it is now, what we have at the top corresponds to a small minority of only 2-10% of cases at best, as it may even be considered a questionable case. Looking at it, most people would ask you what's wrong with that "mild" picture at all! --79.193.59.135 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence the "severe" image is even fluorosis?  I'm having trouble finding anything that confirms it as legit.  Micahmedia (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As said one section further below, I as the owner of the teeth in the image could scan and post my official medical records of 15 years in a row that all read fluorosis due to prior dentist malpractice when I was a toddler and preteen (where my original dentist had prescribed me adult dosages of fluoride pills for years, a prophylactic "fluoride treament" to prevent cavities in my front teeth from the start), but I think it's a bit beyond usual privacy standards on Wikipedia. Also see all the official fluorosis medical photos I have linked above that look just like my teeth did until my insurance paid for purely cosmetic enamel replacement. --2003:71:4E33:E513:6493:E9A2:DDD1:289A (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The link is dead. In any event, the 1999-2004 CDC study did not say that at all.  Though it did indicate an extremely high rate of fluorosis among adolescents 12-15: 41% had definite cases and an additional 20% had "questionable" cases(!).  I have added this info to the article.JustinReilly (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put "severe" image at the top 

message: Hi,
I've removed the unsourced image which did NOT show dental fluorosis but rather, decay. It was clearly there to push POV. To see what severe fluorosis really looks like, see here: http://healthvermont.gov/family/dental/fluoride/formula.aspx#fluorosis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.111.128 (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Images of fluorosis not found at link given. Please link to correct page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you've removed a picture of a case that was certified by at least five dentists to be due to a documented case of a high fluoride intake in the form of prescribed fluoride pills as a toddler and preteen, where the amount prescribed to the child for years equalled an adult dosage due to malpractice of the original dentist. Due to this very case history, the patient never suffered from cavities in his front teeth as the fluoridation treatment had been prescribed to prevent exactly that, but suffered from the case of Colorado brown stain seen in the photo that you have deliberately removed. The picture was taken when the patient was in his late 20s, when not a single case of cavities had ever been identified by a long line of dentists that had examined the condition for almost two decades, and shortly before the patient had his tooth enamel replaced simply out of cosmetic reasons (as he had suffered from severe social stigma due to Colorado brown stain, and his medical insurance paid for his artificial new enamel as just that: A COSMETIC TREATMENT simply for optical reasons!). The patient is now in his mid-30s and still has all his original teeth, only with artificial enamel in the front which had become necessary because of fluorosis. Never once has a single dentist suspected or treated any case of cavities in the patient's frontal teeth during his entire life, while many cavities were identified and treated in his molars during the same time span. What more do you want? Scans of all my official medical records of 15 years in a row where it reads fluorosis all over until I had my enamel replaced? I have them here, but I think that goes a tad beyond Wikipedia's usual modes of privacy. --2003:71:4E33:E513:6493:E9A2:DDD1:289A (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And just in case anybody's wondering, we're talking about this picture here: . --2003:71:4E33:E513:6493:E9A2:DDD1:289A (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Interesting. We are talking about just this kind of thing at WT:MED now. Will put a link to this, there. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup just got another position from a dentist. They say this is a mix of severe dental fluorsis and dental caries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tooth substance which shows mild fluorosis is actually more resistant to decay than "healthy" tooth surfaces. This would correspond to the "snow-capped" teeth where there are white opacities. However, more severe fluorosis can be affected by hypoplasia of enamel, e.g. pitting, which would predispose to decay. I would agree with whoever added the arrows that this seems to be a reasonable analysis of the image, however it is important to state that without more info there could be other cause of tooth discoloration at work. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As said, being the person whose teeth are pictured, at least five dentists over a period of 15 years found no cavities in my front teeth, including at the state pictured, even though my then-dentist's photographer who made photos for my insurance as an amateur suspected cavities and expected my dentist would pull all my teeth, when in fact he only replaced my enamel. What's seen in the image is chipping combined with color change, which is why my insurance refused to pay for my enamel replacement as a medical treatment, only as cosmetic treatment. When the picture was taken, the visual state had deteriorated further than it had been for years because I'd lately begun using whitening toothpaste, which, as can be seen in the picture, only makes everything worse with fluorosis because the few spots with natural enamel became brighter, making the parts made of pure fluoride appear even darker. --2003:71:4E33:E576:D161:9B02:FBB2:87CF (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bogus image 

message: For the chart labeled "NIDR and CDC findings on children", shouldn't the 17% result for both "Questionable fluorosis" and "Very mild fluorosis" be listed twice? Bringing the 1987 total to 39.3%? Looking at the numbers side by side, it doesn't seem like that big of a difference, but the totals at the end seem extreme.
Maybe that table shouldn't be included at all, since they apparently collected different sets of data, or maybe it could be presented more clearly in another way?
While we're on the topic, shouldn't infant Amoxicillin exposure be included in this article? http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/10/04/13528.aspx  "The results show that amoxicillin use during early infancy seems to be linked to dental fluorosis on both permanent first molars and maxillary central incisors," the authors report. "Duration of amoxicillin use was related to the number of early-erupting permanent teeth with fluorosis." 
Sorry if this submission doesn't follow the standard format. This is my first time ever commenting on wikipedia.
174.111.231.166 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIDR and CDC findings on children 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dental fluorosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304123429/http://www.nmji.in/archives/Volume-12/issue-3/editorials-2.pdf to http://www.nmji.in/archives/Volume-12/issue-3/editorials-2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified