Do you need fluoride treatment after a teeth cleaning? Dental experts weigh in

Do you need fluoride treatment after a teeth cleaning? 

Well, if we want fluoride in our toothpaste or while sitting in the dentist's chair, great, we will - but KEEP IT OUT OF OUR WATER. Mass medication without consent is pure authoritarianism, and the fact that they insist on dumping industrial waste byproducts into the water supply under the guise of "dental health" should raise every red flag imaginable. Studies have linked excessive fluoride exposure to lower IQ, thyroid dysfunction, and even skeletal issues - yet the same people who scream about bodily autonomy when it suits them have no problem forcing it down everyone's throat. If it's so "essential," why don't they put other so-called beneficial drugs in the water too?

Oh right - because that would expose the real agenda.

Well, if we want fluoride in our toothpaste or while sitting in the dentist's chair, great, we will - but KEEP IT OUT OF OUR WATER.

There are well proved benefits from fluoridating water and there are zero risks demonstrated at the very low levels that are used. Places where fluoridation stopped (like in Calgary) it was easy to demonstrate that there was an important increment in tooth decay. This is a safe and effective public health measure that science supports. This is not dumping industrial waste, there are zero negative consequences demonstrated at the levels it used in water, yet people still try to lie about this to mislead others into a completely unnecessary anxiety about it.

There is no need to expose anything, the agenda is clear, better health for the public no matter what lies the antiscientific propaganda groups try to push to mislead people.

Oh right - because that would expose the real agenda.

I'm with ya Jay.

RE: Mass medication without consent is pure authoritarianism

Yep, we are all being medicated with a pernicious, dangerous, prevalent drug.

The sugar lobby MUST BE EXPOSED!!!

There are well proved benefits from fluoridating water and there are zero risks demonstrated at the very low levels that are used.

If you want fluoride, go ahead and squeeze it onto your toothbrush or let your dentist use it as a treatment. But you are advocating for it to be FORCED into the water supply, where everyone is mandated to consume it without consent.

Fluoride is classified as a NEUROTOXIN, and multiple studies suggest potential risks even at so-called "safe" levels, including links to lower IQ in children (see studies from Harvard and the National Toxicology Program). The fact that it's often sourced from industrial byproducts should be a red flag, but of course, the same people who parrot pharmaceutical conglomerates every word would tell you there’s "zero risk." An argument as ridiculous as it is transparent.

If you want fluoride, go ahead and squeeze it onto your toothbrush or let your dentist use it as a treatment. But you are advocating for it to be FORCED into the water supply, where everyone is mandated to consume it without consent.

A safe and effective public health measure is justified even if you personally want to have a contrary belief. For the government adding fluoride to safe levels makes people more healthy, demonstrated scientifically.

If you want to have a demonstrably false opinion that is on you, you are trying to force a negative decision based on beliefs that can be proved wrong, so the one that should make extra actions would be you, not those acting in accordance with scientific conclusions. For example buying your own water, just having care of not falling prey of unethical people like RFKjr that made a lot of money demonizing fluoride in the public water and selling his own brand of bottled water with higher levels of fluoride.

Fluoride is classified as a NEUROTOXIN

Not on the levels used for water fluoridation, this is again a misrepresentation that completely invalidates your point of view, that is like pretending bamboo shoots are poison based on their content of Cyanide opportunely hiding that you would need to eat impossible amounts before it gets dangerous.

Flouride in water is safe demonstrated scientifically, without any evidence of any damage produced at the levels used, if you want to believe otherwise even when it has been clearly proved that is your right, but that comes with an extra burden for you, not for public health, since the measure has scientific basis and your personal belief not.

the same people who parrot pharmaceutical conglomerates every word would tell you there’s "zero risk." 

Irrelevant, the scientists can demonstrate there is zero evidence of risk, you on the other hand can't prove any risk beyond what you personally believe, that is not an argument is trying to misrepresent a personal opinion as if fact.

A safe and effective public health measure is justified even if you personally want to have a contrary belief. For the government adding fluoride to safe levels makes people more healthy,

You're completely wrong yet again. The "safe levels" are only based on studies FUNDED by organizations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, and the long-term health consequences of mass medication via water remain unexamined. And while the evidence on its effectiveness is extremely debatable, what's really concerning is that the risks - like fluoride accumulation in bones and potential neurotoxicity - are extremely real.

Fluoride may have some marginal benefits for dental health, but it's unethical and irresponsible to put it into drinking water, and BLATANT overreach to impose it on everyone, especially without consent.

You need to START considering the right of individuals to make their own choices about what goes in their bodies, especially when they're correct.

You're completely wrong yet again. The "safe levels" are only based on studies FUNDED by organizations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo

Of course not, they are funded by many different kinds of institutions, including public health systems that benefit by having less health problems.

This is again just a false accusation you make when you can't find any argument to refute the reasons that disprove your claims.

For example this is one of the studies mentioned

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12685

There are zero funding any organizations with vested interests, just people that looked at the evidence and made scientifically valid conclusions. Even if you refuse to accept those conclusions that does not justify to falsely accuse the authors to belong so some impossible conspiracy.

and the long-term health consequences of mass medication via water remain unexamined

No they don't, it is safe and there is zero evidence of any risk associated.

And while the evidence on its effectiveness is extremely debatable,

No, it is not, the benefits are clear and important enough to become apparent even after a few years as the source demonstrate.

but it's unethical and irresponsible to put it into drinking water,

You have given zero evidence to support this, the intervention is ethical and responsible use of resources that supports public health.

Once again, a personal belief opposing the scientific consensus is not an argument that refute it, even if you repeat it endlessly when asked for evidence.

Of course not, they are funded by many different kinds of institutions, including public health systems that benefit by having less health problems.

Compl wrong once again. You claim pure objectivity and no vested interests, yet their funding sources align with institutions that stand to benefit from their conclusions public health systems, government agencies, and organizations that push mass-medication policies under the guise of "preventative care." How very convenient.

And your study is a single paper in a sea of research, selectively cited to support YOUR predetermined conclusion. Shall we talk about the COUNTLESS studies that have raised concerns about fluoride's effects on neurological development, thyroid function, and overall toxicity? Oh, right, you'll dismiss those because they don't fit the "approved" narrative!

If everything is so cut-and-dried, why is fluoride a choice in so many countries - including Japan. rather than a forced public health measure? Could it be that actual science - REAL, unbiased inquiry -suggests there's more to the story than your simplistic "safe and effective" mantra?

A scientific reference proves without any problem that fluoride has a very positive effect on dental health, without any problem with the data or methodologies, without any conflict of interest nor any benefit obtained by the conclusions except the gained knowledge about what is better for people.

This article has not been refuted, negated nor retracted so it remains valid evidence of the fact that the medical intervention is extremely positive specially in those places where the natural content is low, not agreeing with the results is not an argument to say they are wrong, for that a scientific publication of at least the same quality but with opposite results would be necessary.

Else the science is clear and easy to understand, fluoride is good for dental health, as the article usefully presents:

Patients “who don’t have access to fluoridated water, don’t use fluoridated toothpaste or don’t floss regularly” may be good candidates for fluoride treatments, said Dr. Alex Daniel of Johns Hopkins University.

All three options are safe and effective ways to promote dental health as the professional interviewed recommends.

It doesn't make sense to add fluoride to our drinking water, considering the neurological effects, especially when consumed by young children and pregnant women. If someone wants to get it in their teeth, let them use toothpaste or oral rinses with fluoride.

It doesn't make sense to add fluoride to our drinking water, considering the neurological effects,

Of course it does, it has a demonstrated positive effect on dental health on populations that is quickly lost when the intervention is suspended. It also has no neurological effect on the concentrations used. It is safe and effective. No risk has ever been identified on young children nor pregnant women either, instead these are people that greatly benefit from the addition. There is even a reference here that proves it.

If someone wants to get it in their teeth, let them use toothpaste or oral rinses with fluoride.

As long as the professionals that guide public health can demonstrate a benefit it is justified to add it in the water. After all it has no negative effects and it saves money that is not spend on tooth decay. If people want to reject the scientific consensus about the benefits and lack of risks of the intervention then it is their burden to procure their own water, after all they are the ones rejecting the evidence.

There is no benefit of ingesting it, that cannot be achieved by having it in toothpaste/mouth rinse.

It should be made available to those who want it, and taken out of the water supply.

Of course it does, it has a demonstrated positive effect on dental health on populations that is quickly lost when the intervention is suspended. It also has no neurological effect on the concentrations used. It is safe and effective

No it does not. Tooth decay skyrocketed ONLY when modern diets became heavily sugar-laden - perhaps address that instead of dumping chemicals into public water supplies like some dystopian science experiment.

Second, "no neurological effect"? Completely false. Peer-reviewed studies have linked fluoride exposure to lower IQ levels in children. Be responsible and stop pretending those don't exist. The only thing "quickly lost" when fluoride is removed is control over the population's forced medication.

"Safe and effective?" No and no.

Coincidentally , I specifically came back to Japan to go to the dentist (without insurance) and it cost less than HALF of what my dentist in Florida had raised his prices to, for exactly this (X-Rays, Panorama & Cleaning).

They didn’t do any fluoride treatment and didn’t ask if I wanted it.

My really low ticket price made it worth the bother.

There is no benefit of ingesting it, that cannot be achieved by having it in toothpaste/mouth rinse.

I already put a reference where the benefit was proved. That is why public health system do it, to prevent tooth decay in the population, if there was no benefit there would have been no change when it is suspended, yet there was an important decrease in dental health, this proves the benefit.

It should be made available to those who want it, and taken out of the water supply.

Since the benefits for public health are proved, and it represents no risk that means the ones that want to skip it should be the ones that have to shoulder the burden of the difference.

No it does not

The reference given is a well accepted scientific report that prove it does, and no, the reason you try to use is not the responsible for the changes in 10 years in calgary, that is fully a result from the lack of fluoridation.

Second, "no neurological effect"? 

Yes, no neurological effect at the concentrations used, nobody has ever proved any kind of effect at the concentrations on water. No peer reviewed studies ever.

This is why public health systems use it around the world to support dental health and clearly say it is a safe and effective medical intervention.

Yes, no neurological effect at the concentrations used, nobody has ever proved any kind of effect at the concentrations on water. No peer reviewed studies ever.

This is why public health systems use it around the world to support dental health and clearly say it is a safe and effective medical intervention.

First, you claim “no neurological effect” at common water fluoridation levels. No, completely false. Multiple studies -including ones published in The Lancet and Environmental Health Perspectives - have linked fluoride exposure to reduced IQ, neurotoxicity, and developmental issues in children. Even the National Toxicology Program has acknowledged concerns about fluoride's impact on brain development.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/18/health/children-exposed-to-higher-fluoride-levels-found-to-have-lower-iqs-study-reveals/

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/ohat/fluoride/fluoride_monograph_508.pdf

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.1104912

Again, you can pretend those studies don't exist, but that won’t make them disappear.

Fact is, fluoride is an INDUSTRIAL BYPRODUCT, and chronic exposure has been associated with dental and skeletal fluorosis, thyroid dysfunction, and potential carcinogenic effects. That's why Europe overwhelmingly REJECTS fluoridation in the drinking water supply.

Jay

Well, if we want fluoride in our toothpaste or while sitting in the dentist's chair, great, we will - but KEEP IT OUT OF OUR WATER. Mass medication without consent is pure authoritarianism

Exactly. Thankfully, Tokyo does not fluoridize the tap water. No excuse for those cities who do that.

First, you claim “no neurological effect” at common water fluoridation levels. No, completely false. Multiple studies -including ones published in The Lancet and Environmental Health Perspectives - have linked fluoride exposure to reduced IQ, neurotoxicity, and developmental issues in children.

No in the concentrations used for fluoridation, that is why there is no source that support the claim.

Every source you brought clearly, explicitly mentions that the concentrations are much higher than what is used for water fluoridation, these sources refute your claim.

For example the first

Meanwhile, the US Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L in drinking water.

“There was not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children’s IQs,” Taylor noted.

No evidence that indicate the recommended concentration had any effect.

Your second source does not exist, and the third examines much higher concentrations

In its review of fluoride, the NRC (2006) noted that the safety and the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2–4 mg/L were incompletely documented

This is of course well above the value recommended to be used on fluoridation.

Again, you can pretend those studies don't exist, but that won’t make them disappear.

Nobody has to do that, it is much simpler to read them and see how none of them supports the claim you made, instead the all examine much higher concentrations so the claim that no neurologic effect has been found on the actually recommended concentrations remains completely valid, you just misrepresented studies.

Exactly. Thankfully, Tokyo does not fluoridize the tap water. No excuse for those cities who do that.

There is no excuse necessary, it is been proved to be a safe and effective medical intervention that saves a lot of money and pain due to tooth decay, so it is a valid measure to implement.