Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVictory, Kerton R.
dc.contributor.authorCabrera, Nolan L.
dc.contributor.authorLarson, Daniela
dc.contributor.authorReynolds, Kelly A.
dc.contributor.authorLatura, Joyce
dc.contributor.authorThomson, Cynthia A.
dc.contributor.authorBeamer, Paloma I.
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-29T23:27:29Z
dc.date.available2017-09-29T23:27:29Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-27
dc.identifier.citationComparison of Fluoride Levels in Tap and Bottled Water and Reported Use of Fluoride Supplementation in a United States–Mexico Border Community 2017, 5 Frontiers in Public Healthen
dc.identifier.issn2296-2565
dc.identifier.pmid28497034
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpubh.2017.00087
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/625710
dc.description.abstractBackground: Compared to the general United States (U.S.) population, Arizona counties along the U.S.-Mexico border have a higher prevalence of dental caries, which can be reduced with adequate fluoride exposure. Because of concern regarding local tap water quality, fluoride-free bottled water consumption is common in this region, raising concern that families are not receiving adequate fluoride to promote dental health. Objective: To evaluate the levels of fluoride in tap and bottled water as well as the use of fluoride supplements in an Arizona border community. Methods: Low-income Latino households (n = 90) who report use of bottled water as their primary source of water intake were recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire about their and their children's dental histories and use of fluoride supplements. Water samples (bottled and tap) were collected from a subset of households (n = 30) for analysis of fluoride. Results: Fluoride detection levels were significantly greater (p = 0.02, Fisher's exact test) in tap water (average = 0.49 mg/dL) than in bottled water, yet, the majority (22/30) were below the range for optimal dental health (0.7-1.2 mg/L). Concentration of fluoride in the majority (29/30) of bottled water samples was below the quantitative detection limit of 0.4 mg/L. Children were significantly less likely to have dental caries if they received fluoride varnishing treatments (p = 0.01, Fisher's exact test), lived in households that reported using fluoridated mouthwash (p < 0.001, Fisher's exact test), their parents received fluoride education (p = 0.01, Fisher's exact test), and their parents reported visiting a dentist yearly (p < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). Furthermore, none of the participants reported receiving recommendations from health-care providers about fluoride supplementation or variance in content by the type of water consumed. Conclusion: Although fluoride was significantly more likely to be detected in tap than bottled water, neither water source in this border community is likely to provide enough fluoride for optimal dental health. Low-income children in this region may benefit from regular access to fluoride varnishing treatments and/or use of fluoridated mouthwash, interventions that could be tested in future well-designed trials.
dc.description.sponsorshipWater, Environmental, and Energy Solutions (WEES) through the University of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF); Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center [NIEHS P30 ES006694]; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K25 HL103970]en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherFRONTIERS MEDIA SAen
dc.relation.urlhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00087/fullen
dc.rights© 2017 Victory, Cabrera, Larson, Reynolds, Latura, Thomson and Beamer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectlow-income familiesen
dc.subjectfluorideen
dc.subjectbottled wateren
dc.subjecttap wateren
dc.subjectdental cariesen
dc.subjectUnited States-Mexico borderen
dc.subjectLatinoen
dc.subjecthealth disparitiesen
dc.titleComparison of Fluoride Levels in Tap and Bottled Water and Reported Use of Fluoride Supplementation in a United States–Mexico Border Communityen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Mel & Enid Zuckerman Coll Publ Hlthen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Coll Educen
dc.identifier.journalFrontiers in Public Healthen
dc.description.noteOpen Access Journal.en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-11T23:22:17Z
html.description.abstractBackground: Compared to the general United States (U.S.) population, Arizona counties along the U.S.-Mexico border have a higher prevalence of dental caries, which can be reduced with adequate fluoride exposure. Because of concern regarding local tap water quality, fluoride-free bottled water consumption is common in this region, raising concern that families are not receiving adequate fluoride to promote dental health. Objective: To evaluate the levels of fluoride in tap and bottled water as well as the use of fluoride supplements in an Arizona border community. Methods: Low-income Latino households (n = 90) who report use of bottled water as their primary source of water intake were recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire about their and their children's dental histories and use of fluoride supplements. Water samples (bottled and tap) were collected from a subset of households (n = 30) for analysis of fluoride. Results: Fluoride detection levels were significantly greater (p = 0.02, Fisher's exact test) in tap water (average = 0.49 mg/dL) than in bottled water, yet, the majority (22/30) were below the range for optimal dental health (0.7-1.2 mg/L). Concentration of fluoride in the majority (29/30) of bottled water samples was below the quantitative detection limit of 0.4 mg/L. Children were significantly less likely to have dental caries if they received fluoride varnishing treatments (p = 0.01, Fisher's exact test), lived in households that reported using fluoridated mouthwash (p < 0.001, Fisher's exact test), their parents received fluoride education (p = 0.01, Fisher's exact test), and their parents reported visiting a dentist yearly (p < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). Furthermore, none of the participants reported receiving recommendations from health-care providers about fluoride supplementation or variance in content by the type of water consumed. Conclusion: Although fluoride was significantly more likely to be detected in tap than bottled water, neither water source in this border community is likely to provide enough fluoride for optimal dental health. Low-income children in this region may benefit from regular access to fluoride varnishing treatments and/or use of fluoridated mouthwash, interventions that could be tested in future well-designed trials.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
fpubh-05-00087.pdf
Size:
191.6Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
FInal Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2017 Victory, Cabrera, Larson, Reynolds, Latura, Thomson and Beamer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2017 Victory, Cabrera, Larson, Reynolds, Latura, Thomson and Beamer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).