Distribution pattern of enamel fluorosis severity: What is it telling us about local fluoride exposure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and objective: dental fluorosis severity reflects fluoride exposure during dental enamel development. Recently, prenatal and postnatal exposure to fluoride has been associated with negative neurodevelopmental outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the severity and distribution pattern of dental fluorosis in the primary and permanent dentition, as a basis to discuss the timing and extent of fluoride exposure of children living in endemic areas of fluorosis in the department of Huila. Materials and methods: 840 children (preschoolers and schoolchildren) from four municipalities of the Huila Department were examined by trained dentists for dental fluorosis using the Thylstrup & Fejerskov Index. To estimate the prevalence of severities of fluorosis, each child was classified according to the most severe score. The distribution of the prevalence of enamel fluorosis severity by age-group and type of dentition were reported as prevalence rates (%). Results: Prevalence of dental fluorosis in preschoolers was of 97.2% and in schoolers of 99.9%. For both preschoolers and schoolers moderate fluorosis was the most prevalent (75.6% and 63.5%, respectively). For both primary and permanent teeth, mild fluorosis was more prevalent in anterior teeth than in posterior teeth. Moderate and severe fluorosis were more prevalent in posterior teeth than in anterior teeth. Conclusions: the distribution pattern of the severity of dental fluorosis suggests both prenatal and postnatal exposure to fluoride above recommended levels. This study raises the importance of the validation of dental fluorosis as a potential historical biomarker of fluoride exposure at moments that are critical for neurodevelopment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".