Would like to hear others opinions as well
Fluoride damages teeth
Much research from many parts of the world has suggested that, far from protecting teeth, fluoride actually damages them. One of the largest studies into fluoride levels and dental caries ever carried out comes from Japan. In this study, researchers at Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined the teeth of 20,000 students and showed clearly that they had been harmed by fluoride. The researchers compared students who came from areas with more than 0.4 parts per million fluoride in the drinking water with those whose water contained less than 0.4 ppm. Their results showed clearly that there was significantly more decay in the areas that had the higher levels of fluoride. Note that the 0.4 ppm that was harming teeth is less than half the "optimal" level. Similarly another study, conducted in Ottawa, Kansas, to assess the effects of adding fluoride to the town's water found that fluoridation was a disaster: in the first three years of drinking fluoridated water, the numbers of DMFT in 5- to 6-year-old children more than doubled, while the numbers free from decay nearly halved.
That fluorides have not been shown to benefit teeth should not come as a surprise to the dental profession. As long ago as 1940, it was suggested that seventy percent of the caries in children was in the form of pits and fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, eighty-three per cent of all caries in North American children is of this type. And there is no reason to suppose that children in other Western countries are any different. Pit and fissure cavities are prevented with sealants, they aren"t preventable with fluoride.
Fluoridation is stopped — and teeth get better
The town of Kuopio, in eastern Finland, was fluoridated in 1959. But owing to strong opposition by different civic groups, water fluoridation was stopped at the end of 1992. It was a perfect opportunity to examine the consequences of this discontinuation on dental health. If the theory that fluoride prevented caries was correct, then discontinuing fluoridation should lead to increases in caries. To test this, in 1992 and 1995, independent random samples of all children aged 6, 9, 12 and 15 years were drawn from Kuopio with a nearby low-fluoride town, Jyvaskyla, whose distribution of demographic and socio-economic characteristics was fairly similar to Kuopio's acting as the control group. Dental caries was registered clinically and radiographically by the same two calibrated dentists in both towns.
In 1992 the mean DMFS values were lower in the fluoridated town for the two older age groups but no meaningful differences for the two younger age groups. In 1995, the only difference with possible clinical significance was an eighteen percent reduction found in the 15-year-olds in fluoridated Kuopio. In that year, a decline in caries was seen in the two older age groups in the non-fluoridated town.
In spite of water fluoridation having ceased, there was no indication of any increasing trend of caries in Kuopio.
The researchers considered that, perhaps, caries were prevented by better or more aggressive dental care. But in fact the numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications had decreased sharply in both towns. The researchers conclude that there was no evidence that the cessation of water fluoridation was having a detrimental effect and the decline of caries in the two towns had little to do with professional preventive measures performed in dental clinics.