Talk:Fluoride therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Wikify

Beginning to wikify. Have checked for copyright violations. --Draicone (talk)

Finished wikifying, but this article needs serious cleanup from someone with experience in the field. --Draicone (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There are NO citations whatsoever. The neutrality of this section should be disputed.

[edit] Unsafe?

This page will confuse people because it deals mostly with topical fluoride but then throws in water fluoridation without justification. Could you please add the following sentence as the second sentence in the page:

Fluoride is often use as a topical dental treatment but fluoride is not safe to randomly consume.

Thanks LisaChris 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Added with a minor rewording. --Draicone (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the wikification template. --Draicone (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are those who believe that fluoride is detrimental to human health and should not be used at all. I am not an expert in this field, but I think that, although it is a "minority opinion," it should be adequately addressed in this article.--Dlgwiki 18:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since anti-fluoridation views are a minority opinion, it is better to address those particular points of view adequately in water fluoridation controversy, which is what that article accomplishes. Very frequently, these anti-fluoride arguments are made in the context of water fluoridation, and therefore those views fit nicely into that article. I do not see any reason to cover that opinion in this article, especially since it disagrees with the majority of health and research organizations. - Dozenist talk 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not only water fluoridation that is controversial, also dental treatment and prevention with fluoride so why did you remove the part that adressed that? Are you benefiting whom doing this?

[edit] Dental treatment

The section on fluoride treatment at the dentist needs much more. Some dentists routinely treat all patients with high-concentration foam in trays. This can add $25 USD to each cleaning visit. What chemicals are used? What concentrations? What are major brands/products? What are pros/cons of such treatment? To what extent can same benefits/results be obtained at home? How much cheaper would that be? 69.87.200.131 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good place to start as far as deriving citations, recognizing of course that it is biased against flouride: http://www.FluorideAlert.Org —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauNacht (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Micro Level

Can someone please add more things so as to explain more about what is happening at the micro level?

[edit] toothpaste details and data needed

The article currently reads like an ADA propaganda pamphlet (and disgustingly US-POV). And rather devoid of meaningful details.

What if a person wants to get the most benefit from a fluoride toothpaste? What would be the best way to use it? How many times a day? How long to leave it in, "soaking" the tooth surface? What sources provide what real data to support what treatment schedules?

What if a person was willing to use fluoride toothpaste, but wanted only "topical" treatment, and wanted to avoid "systemic"? Is it enough to just spit out the toothpaste, or should the mouth also be rinsed?

How many times would fluoride toothpaste have to be used, in what way, to be about equal to one expensive fluoride treatment at the dentist?

How many fluoride treatments at the dentist are optimally recommended per year, by who, for who; what are the data that support these recommendations? -69.87.204.120 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varnish

Sources? Most brands of fluoride varnish are 5% NaF, so someone might want to add that.

I've had both varnish and gel, and I would say that the gel has a much more pleasant taste. The varnish has a very objectionable taste for about an hour after application.

Here's some more info if someone would like to add. http://health2k.state.nv.us/oral/FVManual.pdf http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/science_fluoride_varnish.asp http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/04/000413145117.htm

[edit] Source with same wording

The "benefits of fluoride therapy" section is largely copy-paste from this website:

http://www.animated-teeth.com/tooth_decay/t4_tooth_decay_fluoride.htm

Just thought you might want to know.

--128.192.185.240 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

I reverted Petergkeyes edits because the sources do not adhere to WP:RS. The sources, fluoridation.com and fluoride alert, are groups that hold a minority view and are challenging the scientific establishment. In any case, WP:RS states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those sources clearly do not fit that description. - Dozenist talk 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dozenist. Twice now you have removed my citations of the New York Times and the Journal of the American Dental Association. Fluoride Action Network and nofluoride.com are merely the messengers for these sources. I am not sure what reference from fluoridation.com you refer to. Do you not believe that the New York Times published a story on William Kennerly's fatal fluoride overdose? If you are doubtful of that fact, what should be done to indicate to you that it is a real New York Times article?

Likewise with the JAMA article. It is a real article - I have seen a hard copy of that edition of the Journal. I intend to reverse your removal of my valid citations. Petergkeyes (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If these articles exist, then quote them. Quoting from a advocacy website, is quoting that website, not the original article. See WP:RS for more information. Shot info (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Health risks pov

I've pov-tagged the section given that the sources are cherry-picked by extremely biased sources and in most cases there has yet to be any effort to apply basic WP:NPOV guidelines to the presentation of the material. Overall, we're giving undue weight to fringe opinions. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...biased sources? Have you not heard of the National Research Council previously? Anyway, I read the book and took its general findings. If you can find things that don't belong, that's fine. But there's no more credible source in the United States than the NRC. If you cannot point to particulars, I will take off that POV. If you object to that, then I will ask for a Request for Comment, because I know there are Wikipedians who have heard of the NRC. Impin | {talk - contribs} 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the section is unreferenced. The second by the source I'm concerned about. The POV tag belongs for these alone. --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I also believe the POV tag should remain for the reasons stated above. Additionally, the section would be improved if it have more published, reliable secondary sources as references. - Dozenist talk 13:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro to the health risks section has now been cited via the Mayo Clinic. I would advise removing the POV tag. I invite Dozenist, Ronz and anyone else to help improve this page by providing reliable information and citations for the health risks involved with fluoride therapy. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dozenist didn't like the Mayo citation for the particular statement. It was a rather weak way to start in on health risks. Stating what fluoride is not is rather different than outlining the health risks of fluoride therapy. So I deleted this sentence: "Fluoride is not a vitamin or a necessary mineral, and aside from making the teeth less susceptible to cavities at low levels, it has negative effects on the body when consumed." It is a hot button sentence bound to get everybody all upset, and I believe the section is much stronger without it.

The sentence on the overdose looks nice and concise. But I think it should state that it was fluoride therapy in the dentist's chair that killed the boy, rather than some other form of ingestion, such as eating rat poison or toothpaste. That might force it into two sentences. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out as I stated in the edit history that the Mayo citation did not reflect the statement in the article. Since the statement has been removed from the article, this is no longer even a concern. Note that instead of solely deleting the citation, I added the information from the citation to a different location in the article. - Dozenist talk 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raised the linking to full-text issue

Hi Shot info, I've raised your issue over at here at WT:CITE. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy, point to the source, not to the source "hosted" by a dubious source. It's all in WP:RS. Shot info (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Show me where it says that. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS Shot info (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You already linked to that. I don't see the passage. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The full text version of the NYT article has been restored. It is good to see the official NYT truncated version, but the information provided in the complete text is crucial. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow my link to WT:CITE. Boracay Bill raises the fair point that this work is likely copyrighted, and shouldn't be linked to. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this link: [1]. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)