natural fluoride level of 0.6 ppm.if the fluoride level is raised by 0.4 ppm,tooth decay among grade grade school children is expected to decrease by approximately what percent after seven years
Akbar wrote: > natural fluoride level of 0.6 ppm.if the fluoride level is raised by 0.4 > ppm,tooth decay among grade grade school children is expected to decrease by > approximately what percent after seven years
>> natural fluoride level of 0.6 ppm.if the fluoride level is raised by 0.4 >> ppm,tooth decay among grade grade school children is expected to decrease >> by >> approximately what percent after seven years
>> could someone please help how to calculate this
> Sure:
> 0.6 + 0.4 - 1
> -- > -History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-: > --- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm --- > ----------------------------------------------------
Akbar wrote: > thanks for replying back could u please provide detail on the answer as all > i see is u just added both nuber but how would u calculate the percentage
I doubt very much you are going to find usable data. First of all, 0.6-1.0 ppm is generally considered the range for effective water fluoridation. We would never for example recommend enteral fluoride supplementation for a patient in a water supply in that range. Furthermore, there is so much fluoride in the food supply, toothpaste etc. that in most parts of the world it would be difficult in vivo to determine the average increase in actual dose. In any case, the bulk of recent research tends to indicate that the primary mode of caries inhibition is topical exposure. I think it would be difficult to impossible to demonstrate a benefit for an incremental increase in fluoride concentration within the generally accepted therapeutic concentration.
>>>natural fluoride level of 0.6 ppm.if the fluoride level is raised by 0.4 >>>ppm,tooth decay among grade grade school children is expected to decrease >>>by >>>approximately what percent after seven years
>>>could someone please help how to calculate this
>>Sure:
>>0.6 + 0.4 - 1
>>-- >>-History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-: >>--- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm --- >>----------------------------------------------------
a great reply over which I can agree for the greatest part, except a few points:
> Akbar wrote: > > thanks for replying back could u please provide detail on the answer as all > > i see is u just added both nuber but how would u calculate the percentage
With ZERO as a result it doesnīt matter whether it means number of children, teeth or percentage.
> I doubt very much you are going to find usable data. First of all, > 0.6-1.0 ppm is generally considered the range for effective water > fluoridation. We would never for example recommend enteral fluoride > supplementation for a patient in a water supply in that range. > Furthermore, there is so much fluoride in the food supply, toothpaste > etc. that in most parts of the world it would be difficult in vivo to > determine the average increase in actual dose.
It is already next to impossible to determine the average (nor individual) actual dose without an "increase".
> In any case, the bulk of recent research tends to indicate that the > primary mode of caries inhibition is topical exposure. I think it would > be difficult to impossible to demonstrate a benefit for an incremental > increase in fluoride concentration within the generally accepted > therapeutic concentration.
It also was "difficult" back in Deanīs times without the so-called "halo" effect. There was no demonstrated benefit if you look carefully at Deanīs statistics.
> a great reply over which I can agree for the greatest part, except a few > points:
>>Akbar wrote:
>>>thanks for replying back could u please provide detail on the answer as all >>>i see is u just added both nuber but how would u calculate the percentage
> With ZERO as a result it doesnīt matter whether it means number of > children, teeth or percentage.
>> I doubt very much you are going to find usable data. First of all, >>0.6-1.0 ppm is generally considered the range for effective water >>fluoridation. We would never for example recommend enteral fluoride >>supplementation for a patient in a water supply in that range. >>Furthermore, there is so much fluoride in the food supply, toothpaste >>etc. that in most parts of the world it would be difficult in vivo to >>determine the average increase in actual dose.
> It is already next to impossible to determine the average (nor > individual) actual dose without an "increase".
>> In any case, the bulk of recent research tends to indicate that the >>primary mode of caries inhibition is topical exposure. I think it would >>be difficult to impossible to demonstrate a benefit for an incremental >>increase in fluoride concentration within the generally accepted >>therapeutic concentration.
> It also was "difficult" back in Deanīs times without the so-called > "halo" effect. There was no demonstrated benefit if you look carefully > at Deanīs statistics.
> Regards, > Peter
The OP's original query sounded a little bit like a homework assignment to me.
> a great reply over which I can agree for the greatest part, except a few > points:
>> Akbar wrote: >> > thanks for replying back could u please provide detail on the answer as >> > all >> > i see is u just added both nuber but how would u calculate the >> > percentage
> With ZERO as a result it doesnīt matter whether it means number of > children, teeth or percentage.
>> I doubt very much you are going to find usable data. First of >> all, >> 0.6-1.0 ppm is generally considered the range for effective water >> fluoridation. We would never for example recommend enteral fluoride >> supplementation for a patient in a water supply in that range. >> Furthermore, there is so much fluoride in the food supply, toothpaste >> etc. that in most parts of the world it would be difficult in vivo to >> determine the average increase in actual dose.
> It is already next to impossible to determine the average (nor > individual) actual dose without an "increase".
>> In any case, the bulk of recent research tends to indicate that >> the >> primary mode of caries inhibition is topical exposure. I think it would >> be difficult to impossible to demonstrate a benefit for an incremental >> increase in fluoride concentration within the generally accepted >> therapeutic concentration.
> It also was "difficult" back in Deanīs times without the so-called > "halo" effect. There was no demonstrated benefit if you look carefully > at Deanīs statistics.
> Regards, > Peter
> -- > -History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-: > --- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm --- > ----------------------------------------------------
|
