Dental Fluorosis Trends in US Oral Health Surveys: 1986 to 2012
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dental fluorosis has been assessed only 3 times in nationally representative oral health surveys in the United States. The first survey was conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research from 1986 to 1987. Subsequently, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted fluorosis assessments from 1999 to 2004 and more recently from 2011 to 2012. A large increase in prevalence and severity of fluorosis occurred between the 1986-1987 and 1999-2004 surveys. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the trend of increasing fluorosis continued in the 2011-2012 survey. METHODS: We analyzed publicly available data from the 2011-2012 NHANES, calculating fluorosis prevalence and severity using 3 measures: person-level Dean's Index score, total prevalence of those with Dean's Index of very mild degree and greater, and Dean's Community Fluorosis Index. We examined these fluorosis measures by several sociodemographic factors and compared results with the 2 previous surveys. Analyses accounted for the complex design of the surveys to provide nationally representative estimates. RESULTS: Large increases in severity and prevalence were found in the 2011-2012 NHANES as compared with the previous surveys, for all sociodemographic categories. For ages 12 to 15 y-an age range displaying fluorosis most clearly-total prevalence increased from 22% to 41% to 65% in the 1986-1987, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012 surveys, respectively. The rate of combined moderate and severe degrees increased the most, from 1.2% to 3.7% to 30.4%. The Community Fluorosis Index increased from 0.44 to 0.67 to 1.47. No clear differences were found in fluorosis rates among categories for most of the sociodemographic variables in the 2011-2012 survey. CONCLUSION: Large increases in fluorosis prevalence and severity occurred. We considered several possible spurious explanations for these increases but largely ruled them out based on counterevidence. We suggest several possible real explanations for the increases. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study greatly increase the evidence base indicating that objectionable dental fluorosis has increased in the United States. Dental fluorosis is an undesirable side effect of too much fluoride ingestion during the early years of life. Policy makers and professionals can use the presented evidence to weigh the risks and benefits of water fluoridation and early exposure to fluoridated toothpaste.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".