Abstract
A telephone survey was carried out in 1994, in the Quebec City region, among 1006 people living in two municipalities where tap water is fluoridated and 1003 people living in two municipalities where there is no fluoridation. Knowledge of the main benefit associated with the use of fluoride (prevention of tooth decay) in drinking water was not different in fluorated versus non- fluoridated municipalities (20.4% vs 19.4%, p = 0.57). Knowledge of its main disadvantage (increase of dental fluorosis) was very low and similar in both groups (3.1% vs 2.0%, p = 0.11). Opposition to fluoridation was slightly higher in fluoridated areas (22.0% vs 18.3%, p = 0.04), and the use of fluoridated supplements for children was much less important in fluoridated areas (4.4% vs 12.4%, p = 0.001). No changes in the measures of association (odds ratios) were found after adjustment for the different characteristics of the participants (age, family income, education). Opposition to fluoridation was lower among those who believed their tap water was fluoridated (even if not): 19.9% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001. This study demonstrates that there is still need for public health education on the uses of fluorides.
Résumé
Une enquête téléphonique a été menée en 1994, auprès d’un échantillon de personnes résidant dans la région de Québec: 1006 résidants dans deux municipalités avec fluoruration et 1003 personnes dans deux municipalités sans fluoruration. La connaissance du principale bénéfice associé à l’utilisation de fluorures dans l’eau potable (prévention de la carie dentaire) n’était pas différente dans les municipalités fluorées et non fluorées (20,4 vs 19,4 %; p = 0,57). La connaissance du principal désavantage (augmentation de la fluorose dentaire) était très faible et semblable dans les deux groupes (3,1 % vs 2,0 %; p = 0,11). Les mesures d’association considérées (rapports de cotes) n’étaient pas modifiées après ajustement pour les différentes caractéristiques des participants (âge, revenu familial, éducation). L’opposition à la fluoruration était plus faible chez ceux qui pensaient que leur eau était fluorée (même si elle ne l était pas): 19,9 % vs 34,5 %; p < 0,001. Cette étude démontre qu’une éducation sanitaire sur l’usage des fluorures est encore nécessaire.
References
- 1.American Association on Public Health Dentistry. Position statement on community water fluoridation. Public Health Dent. 1993;53:61. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1993.tb02673.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Marshall E. The fluoride debate: One more time. Science. 1990;247:276–77. doi: 10.1126/science.2296717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Emerson B, Clark DC. The challenge of a fluoridation referendum: The results of a referendum in British Columbia. Can J Health. 1993;84:84–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Clark DC. Trends in prevalence of dental fluorosis in North America. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:148–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01832.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ismail AI, Brodeur J-M, Kavanagh M e al. Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in students, 11–17 years of age, in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities in Québec. Caries Res. 1990;24:290–97. doi: 10.1159/000261285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D e al. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia, be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993;21:118–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1993.tb00734.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Grondin J, Levallois P, Gingras S. The Influence of Demographics, Risk Perception, Knowledge, and Organoleptics on Water Consumption Patterns; 1996. pp. 537–46. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pendrys DG, Morse DE. Fluoride supplement use by children in fluoridated communities. J Public Health Dent. 1995;55:160–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1995.tb02360.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Den Besten PK. Dental fluorosis: Its use as a biomarker. Adv Dent Res. 1994;8:105–10. doi: 10.1177/08959374940080010201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ismail Al. Fluoride supplements: Current effectiveness, side effects, and recommendations. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:164–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01835.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pollard MA, Duggal MS, Fayle S e al. Caries Preventive Strategies. Brussels: ILSI Europe; 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Canadian Pediatric Society. The use of fluoride in infants and children. 1995. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kowalchuk I. New guidelines on fluoride supplementation for children. CMAJ. 1996;154:1007–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Payette M, Brodeur J-M, Lepage Y, Plante R. Portrait de la santé dentaire des jeunes québécois de 7 à 17 ans. Montréal: Centre de coordination de santé communautaire; 1991. Enquête santé dentaire Québec, 1989–1990. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Scherer CW. Communicating water quality risk. J Soil Water Conservation. 1990;45:198–201. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Slovic P, Flynn J, Mertz CK, Mullican L. Health Risk Perception in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 17.AWWA. Consumer Attitude Survey on Water Quality Issues. Denver: American Water Works Association, Research Foundation; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vallée J-G, Kandelman D. Connaissances, attitudes et pratiques des médecins de l’ouest de l’Île de Montréal à l’égard du fluor et de la prévention de la fluorose dentaire. Can J Public Health. 1993;84:94–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kuthy RA, McTigue DJ. Fluoride prescription practices of Ohio physicians. J Public Health Dent. 1987;47:172–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1987.tb02000.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]