Fluoride Action Network


Full Text:

Key Points

Question  From which social relationships do mothers obtain child fluoride information and misinformation?

Findings  In this qualitative study of 126 mothers of children aged 3 to 5 years, fluoride information and misinformation relating to children were obtained from family members, health care clinicians, and community members. The receipt of inconsistent child fluoride information from multiple sources resulted in confusion and difficulty assessing the accuracy of the fluoride information.

Meaning  These findings suggest that social relationships can be a potential target for interventions to provide accurate fluoride information related to children.


Importance  Fluoride delivered either topically (eg, fluoride varnish) or systemically (eg, water fluoridation, prescription fluoride supplements) is widely used as a caries preventive agent in children. The widespread existence of misinformation, including inaccurate information that attaches negative values or suspicion to fluoride treatments, raises concerns that misinformation will lead to underutilization of fluoride and contribute to avoidable increases in caries prevalence.

Objective  To describe the social relationships from which mothers obtain child fluoride information and misinformation.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This qualitative study analyzed 126 mothers with children aged 3 to 5 years to explore how their social networks were associated with their child’s oral health. Mothers were recruited from community-based sites in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and throughout the state of West Virginia from 2018 to 2020. In-person, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using Nvivo 12. Three investigators analyzed data using template analysis, a qualitative technique that combines inductive and deductive approaches to identify patterns until primary themes are identified.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Sources of information regarding fluoride from the mother’s social relationships.

Results  Of the 126 mothers with children aged 3 to 5 years in Pittsburgh and West Virginia, 120 (95%) identified as non-Hispanic White and 5 (4%) identified as Hispanic White; 38 (30%) had a bachelor’s degree, 77 (61%) had private dental insurance for their child, and 52 (41%) had an income less than $50,000; 82 (65%) reported that they discussed child fluoride information with members of their social network. Mothers described that they obtained fluoride information from family members, health care clinicians, and community members. The receipt of inconsistent child fluoride information from multiple sources resulted in confusion and difficulty assessing whether fluoride information was accurate.

Conclusions and Relevance  This qualitative study found that mothers received inconsistent child fluoride information from multiple sources, which resulted in confusion and difficulty assessing the accuracy of the fluoride information. These findings suggest that social relationships can be a potential target for interventions to communicate fluoride information related to children.


Nationwide, one of the most common preventable chronic childhood diseases is dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay.1,2 If left untreated, dental caries can lead to pain, infection, decreased school attendance and performance, and trouble eating, talking, socializing, and sleeping.25 Between 2015 and 2016 in the United States, approximately 21% of children aged 2 to 5 years experienced dental caries in their primary teeth.6

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes the reduction of dental caries due to water fluoridation (the controlled addition of fluoride to community water supplies) to be one of greatest public health achievements of the 20th century: fluoride containing water is now delivered to more than 73% of the US population.7,9,10 Whether administered topically or systemically, fluoride can be an effective addition to comprehensive caries prevention or management intervention at individual and community levels.2,713 Guidelines support the application of fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children starting at the age of primary tooth eruption.14 Fluoride’s mechanisms of action for caries prevention and management include its ability to decrease demineralization of enamel, increase remineralization of early carious lesions, and inhibit bacterial activity in dental plaque.11 There is extensive literature documenting that appropriate fluoride use is both safe and effective for preventing and managing dental caries.724

There are, however, both legitimate and illegitimate concerns regarding fluoride safety. The safety concerns range from minor cosmetic effects (eg, mild dental fluorosis) to concerns regarding serious medical issues (eg, cancer, neurotoxic effects) and are almost exclusively associated with ingestion of fluoride either intentionally (ie, via the introduction of fluoride into community water supplies, salt, or milk) or unintentionally through the inadvertent swallowing of topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and rinses. Fluorosis is linked to overingestion of fluoride during tooth formation,21 such as long-term ingestion of 1 to 10 ppm fluoride in the drinking water above the recommended 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration recommended by the US Public Health Service to prevent dental caries.22

More serious medical concerns have been suggested since widespread water fluoridation in the 1950s. However, for the most part, these concerns have been dismissed due to lack of supporting scientific evidence or the existence of strong evidence demonstrating that the concerns are, in fact, not valid. The most recent concern of note was raised in 2006,25 investigating if fluoride was associated with neurotoxic effects and further research was indicated. Several epidemiological studies followed that indicated an association.26 However, upon further in-depth reviews, these concerns were dismissed as being methodologically flawed and that neurotoxic effects would be unlikely to occur in typical community water fluoridation conditions found in high-income countries.2730

Health decisions can become confusing when legitimate concerns are influenced by misinformation.3134 Reports from pilot or poorly conducted studies suggesting adverse effects of fluoride have and continue to enter popular culture, raising fear and causing reluctance to use fluoride for caries prevention and management. Claims that fluoride causes cancer and limits cognitive development and thyroid functioning have been debunked,3539 yet the fears may remain. Conflicting information can lead caregivers to choose to not expose their child to fluoride.40 There are multiple potential sources of fluoride misinformation. Online sources, such as social media, can persuasively present inaccurate information that quickly spreads, dilutes or discredits the advice of public health experts, and threatens public safety.41 Although there is published literature on how social media spreads fluoride misinformation,4244 far less is known about the spread of misinformation through in-person social relationships. The purpose of this study was to fill this gap in how caregivers may be misinformed about fluoride by examining whether a portion of caregivers—mothers in Appalachia—obtained child fluoride information through their in-person social relationships.


Research Design, Data Collection, and Initial Analysis

In this qualitative study, we conducted one-on-one, in-person, semistructured interviews with mothers on how their social network affects child oral health. The participants were 126 mothers with children aged 3 to 5 years and recruited from a larger longitudinal parent study, the Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia (COHRA2) from 2018 to 2020.45 This study was approved by the SMART Institutional Review Board mechanism with the University of Pittsburgh as the primary site and West Virginia University as the referring site. This study was conducted and reported in accordance with guidelines from the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) reporting guideline.46 Written informed consent was obtained from all mothers. These interviews also are the basis for other research on child oral health.4749

Fluoride was not included as a probe in our initial semistructured interview guide—which included domains on child dental visits, home dental hygiene and cariogenic diet—but arose as a common topic mentioned by the mothers. Three female interviewers collected qualitative data and tailored open-ended questions and prompts on child dental hygiene to information provided by the participants. These interviewers met as a team with the principal investigator bimonthly to review data, identify preliminary themes emerging from the interviews, and discuss additional domains to clarify in subsequent interviews.

Researcher Characteristics and Reflexivity

The principal investigator (J.M.B.) is a clinician-scientist specializing in pediatric dentistry and health services research who experienced lack of access to fluoridated water as a child and provided fluoride information to families with young children. The research assistant (Z.T.D.) did not receive fluoride from a dentist until adulthood and often drank well water as a minor. The dental hygiene student (J.S.Y.) experienced poor access to dental care as a child, was exposed to fluoride misinformation as a layperson, received comprehensive education on fluoride during dental hygiene training, and serves disadvantaged communities that experience a burden of dental caries that may be reduced with fluoride.

Data Analysis

The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim (TranscribeMe) and imported into NVivo version 12 (QSR International) to conduct template analysis. Template analysis uses deductive and inductive coding.50,51 We organized relevant data into a priori codes of “supportive of fluoride” or “unsupportive of fluoride” by relationship type. Additional codes emerged inductively during transcription analysis, such as “conflicting fluoride information from multiple sources.” A final codebook—including definitions, when and when not to use codes, and examples—was applied it to all qualitative data. We used the coded data to extract quotations for analysis. We wrote memos52 to summarize, analyze, and interpret why and how mothers sought information on child dental fluoride from their social relationships. Our final themes arose from the memos and were refined using a constant comparative method53 until theoretical saturation, or when no new ideas about the concepts emerge, was reached.52 An interviewer (Z.T.D.) for this study, provided field notes to aid in data interpretation. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to June 2021.


In this qualitative study of 126 mothers, 120 (95%) identified as non-Hispanic White and 5 (4%) identified as Hispanic White; 38 (30%) had a bachelor’s degree, 77 (61%) had private dental insurance for their child, and 52 (41%) had an income less than $50,000 (Table 1). Two main themes emerged regarding how mothers obtain child fluoride information and misinformation from their social relationships. First, mothers obtained fluoride information from 3 types of social relationships: family members, health care clinicians, and community members. Eighty-two mothers (65%) received information on child dental fluoride primarily through these 3 types of social relationships (Table 1). Second, getting fluoride information from multiple sources was associated with confusion and difficulty assessing whether that information was accurate.

Familial Relatives

Mothers described that the most common source of child fluoride information was a family member (Table 2). One mother described that she inherited strong, long-standing fluoride support from her family, despite living far away from them. She stated, “My grandfather in [state] was an oral surgeon and led the fight to have our water fluoridated. So, my mom was always telling me that her father is rolling over in his grave about [me not having fluoridated water].” Her sister “made fun of [her] for living somewhere without fluoridated water” when she brought up needing fluoride supplements for her children and introducing fluoride toothpaste earlier than her sister’s children. After growing up in a family with complete support for fluoride treatment, the mother was surprised to find out her community’s water was not fluoridated, “because I didn’t know that even happened anymore until I lived there and had a child.”

Mothers discussed that some family members supported dental fluoride for children and others opposed it (Table 2). One mother expressed her concern with fluoride after relaying her extended family member’s experience with a fluoride allergy. “My cousin has an allergy to [fluoride], and they get special expensive filtered water without fluoride. And they also have a special head on their shower that does something with the fluoride in the water.” The extent of her cousin’s sensitivity to fluoride requires the family to filter out fluoride from both their drinking and bathing water, raising fear and suspicion of fluoride safety, even though the mother is unaffected by a fluoride allergy. She sought additional fluoride information from her child’s dental hygienist to relieve her concerns and was unsatisfied when the hygienist referenced a trusted source without conveying her reasoning: “Well, because the FDA recommends it.” The mother described her lack of trust in the dental hygienist’s response by explaining that “I don’t have all the information. I’m not too willing to trust it just because somebody tells me I should” and “I just don’t know the full history of why it’s added, why do we take it, and why it’s supplemented.”

Professional Relationships With Health Care Clinicians

As described in the aforementioned quote, mothers considered dental professionals—within the context of a professional health care relationship—as part of their social network for child oral health. Many mothers considered their health care clinicians as source of fluoride information for children (Table 3).

One mother described that she received child fluoride information from both her child’s pediatrician and dentist: “Our pediatrician is the one that pointed out that … we didn’t have fluoride in our water. I learned that from my pediatrician … I feel like they swallow such a huge amount of toothpaste when they brush their teeth … I did have a couple of conversations with our dentist about it.” Once she knew her community water lacked fluoride, this mother spread this information throughout her social network, stating she “always tell other parents” and emphasized to one friend, “You have to [get fluoride supplements].”

Many mothers described being introduced to the benefits of fluoride for children’s teeth through the pediatrician’s application of dental fluoride varnish during a well visit. One mother reported that her pediatrician “would put fluoride on his teeth the first 2 years we were going. And then they said he needed to go to the dentist. So, we made the appointment.”

Mothers also cited dentists as a source of fluoride information, although they did not always agree with the dentists’ recommendations. One mother explained she did not believe fluoride is safe for children, but her dentist consistently offered fluoride treatments, despite her refusal. “She will make recommendations that I don’t agree with or that I don’t want to hear. So, I mean, she recommends, like a normal dentist would, to do the fluoride stuff. I don’t put fluoride on my kid’s teeth. [The dentist]’s regular recommendation is to do the fluoride treatment, and I don’t do it because it’s a toxic level of fluoride that they put in your kid’s mouth.”

In our results, mothers did not report any health care clinicians opposing child fluoride use. However, some pediatricians and dentists occasionally gave conflicting information about when to begin fluoride toothpaste and whether additional fluoride supplements were necessary (Table 3). Some mothers found their pediatrician reluctant to advise about child fluoride use, even when asking for reassurance about fluoride misinformation: “I heard something terrible about, ‘Oh, fluoride can cause cancer and all this stuff.’ So, I just recently asked my pediatrician about does he think that’s true. And then that brought up the whole conversation. He didn’t want to [address it], ‘You just ask your dentist. We just–do what your dentist tells you if your dentist tells you to do it.’ But then he said, ‘No. There’s nothing, right now, to say that it does cause cancers or anything or any problems.’”

In the aforementioned quotation, the pediatrician referred the mother to her dentist regarding questions about dental fluoride and cancer. Although the pediatrician stated that fluoride does not cause cancer, the mother also reported that the pediatrician did not want to talk about dental fluoride. Both referral and reluctance to discuss fluoride by a health care professional are important observations for a mother with serious concerns regarding carcinogenic effects.

Community Members

Mothers described soliciting and receiving both profluoride and antifluoride information from community members (Table 4). Examples of profluoride information that mothers received included “common sense” child dental care tips from “people who had tried it” in a parent support group. Parents recommended that “if you’re concerned about cavities, make sure when they do start going to the dentist, they get fluoride treatments.” An example of antifluoride information came from a mother’s acquaintance who works for a water authority. He expressed strong disapproval of fluoride, stating, “It is disgusting. You shouldn’t have fluoride in your water. You should see the chemicals that I put in to fluoridate the water.” This mother dismissed the advice as “old-fashioned paranoia.”

In addition to recalling specific incidents of exchanging fluoride information from community members, mothers explained that they were aware of general beliefs about fluoride in the community, even if they did not know the detailed origin of those beliefs or how they may apply to children. For example, one mother stated, “I’ve never heard of people being against fluoride toothpaste, but I’ve always heard people say, ‘Don’t put fluoride in my water.’ … It definitely wasn’t anybody close to me. The closest somebody would have been would be one of my friends’ parents or something, and they mentioned it in passing.”

Receiving Fluoride Information From Multiple Sources

Mothers may receive inconsistent fluoride information from multiple sources, complicating their decision to use fluoride on their child (Table 5). For example, one mother received profluoride information from a family member, health care clinician, and a community member, but chose not to adhere to any of the advice because she did not trust the sources. This mother drank fluoridated water as a child, and her exposure to excess fluoride led to “a lot of those white spots on my teeth growing up. And I had a lot, where I got made fun of. But I had my front 2 teeth shaved to get a lot of it removed.” Her dentist “did tell us to buy bottled water that has some fluoride in it because there’s not fluoride in our water. I’ve kind of ignored this advice so far.” Her pediatrician “told me that [their community water is not fluoridated] and I ignored it. And then I ignored it again.” In a conversation with a community member about fluoride, she maintained her antifluoride stance, “[My friend] would say, ‘Yes. Give them the fluoride’ … and I would still choose to ignore her and not do it for all the reasons that we just talked about.” This mother distrusted the fluoride information she received because of her traumatic childhood experience with fluorosis-affected teeth. The mother did not want her children to share her negative experience with fluorosis, so she withheld fluoridated water from her children. This example illustrates that the type of relationship and validity of the fluoride information may not be as important as the trust in the source.


Mothers reported receiving child dental fluoride information from social connections, including family members, health care clinicians, and community members. At times, the messaging mothers received around fluoride safety and efficacy conflicted and caused difficulty and confusion when trying to reconcile it. This study’s results are consistent with previous literature documenting the spread of health-related misinformation in social networks,5457 but add specificity to the types of relationships for child fluoride.

The results of this study have possible implications for clinical practice. Our findings suggest that clinicians can anticipate that caregivers may be receiving alternative messaging about fluoride from family and community sources. Therefore, clinicians may want to inquire whether caregivers have questions or concerns over the safety and efficacy of fluoride use. Listening to the mother’s concerns may help clinicians better understand any confusion around fluoride and then tailor their messaging in a way that addresses specific inaccurate information. Opening a discussion about the mother’s struggle to determine what is best for her child amid multiple conflicting pieces of fluoride information may engender more trust with clinicians. This family-centered approach to fluoride misinformation may help clinicians avoid a 1-way transfer of information, which may be ineffective in the face of multiple sources of fluoride information from trusted relationships.

This study has implications for the timing of child fluoride advice. Children may be unable to visit a dentist during the first few years of life,5865 when home hygiene habits are established. In the absence of information on child fluoride from dentists, our results show that mothers may be receiving multiple sources of conflicting information about fluoride from other social relations, such as family and community members.


This study had some limitations. First, mothers were the exclusive focus in this study and were a convenience sample from a relatively racially and ethnically homogenous population in north and north-central Appalachia, so caution should be taken in generalization. Nevertheless, this population is one that bears the burden of oral health inequities, and so is a crucially important group of focus. Second, we did not ask mothers about fluoride information from social media, which previous studies have shown to include antifluoride information.

Future studies can examine effective communication and trust associated with child fluoride information. Researchers can examine the effectiveness of health communication theories and practices66 in the context of multiple fluoride messages from multiple sources. Future research can also include fathers and identify factors that engender trust in fluoride information. These factors could be related to how and why child fluoride treatment is beneficial and safe, the source, communication style, frequency, and timing of the message.


This qualitative study found that mothers sought and received fluoride information from family, health care, and community members. These findings suggest that social relationships can both spread information and be a source of factual alternatives to misinformation on fluoride.

Back to top

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: February 20, 2022.

Published: April 1, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6414

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Burgette JM et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Jacqueline M. Burgette, DMD, PhD, Department of Dental Public Health, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 (jacqueline@pitt.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Burgette had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Burgette, Dahl, Weyant, McNeil, Marazita.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Burgette, Dahl, Yi, McNeil, Foxman, Marazita.

Drafting of the manuscript: Burgette, Dahl, Yi, Weyant.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Burgette, Weyant, McNeil, Foxman, Marazita.

Obtained funding: Burgette, McNeil, Marazita.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Burgette, Dahl, McNeil, Marazita.

Supervision: Burgette, Weyant, McNeil, Marazita.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was completed with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program, and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (grant No. R01 DE014899).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: The authors express appreciation to Natalie Marquart, BS, West Virginia University, and Linda Brown, RDH, West Virginia University, who were involved in primary data collection; and appreciation to all study participants for providing their unique narratives. They were not compensated.



Satcher  D, Nottingham  JH.  Revisiting oral health in America: A report of the surgeon general.   Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S1):S32-S33. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303687PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


US Department of Health and Human Services. 2000 surgeon general’s report on oral health in America. Accessed February 22, 2022. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/DataStatistics/SurgeonGeneral/Documents/hck1ocv.@www.surgeon.fullrpt.pdf


Vargas  CM, Monajemy  N, Khurana  P, Tinanoff  N.  Oral health status of preschool children attending Head Start in Maryland, 2000.   Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(3):257-263.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Jackson  SL, Vann  WF  Jr, Kotch  JB, Pahel  BT, Lee  JY.  Impact of poor oral health on children’s school attendance and performance.   Am J Public Health. 2011;101(10):1900-1906. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.200915PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Pahel  BT, Rozier  RG, Slade  GD.  Parental perceptions of children’s oral health: the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS).   Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:6. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Fleming  E, Afful  J. Prevalence of total and untreated dental caries among youth: United States, 2015-2016. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2018. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db307.htm


Murthy  VH.  Surgeon general’s perspecitives.   Public Health Rep. 2015;130(4):296-298. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43775495. doi:10.1177/003335491513000402PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States.   MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-14):1-42.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Achievements in public health, 1900-1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries.   JAMA. 2000;283(10):1283-1286. doi:10.1001/jama.283.10.1283
ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Ten great public health achievements–United States, 1900-1999.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(12):241-243.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Pollick  H.  The role of fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay.   Pediatr Clin North Am. 2018;65(5):923-940. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2018.05.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Slade  GD, Grider  WB, Maas  WR, Sanders  AE.  Water fluoridation and dental caries in U.S. children and adolescents.   J Dent Res. 2018;97(10):1122-1128. doi:10.1177/0022034518774331PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Lee  HH, Faundez  L, LoSasso  AT.  A cross-sectional analysis of community water fluoridation and prevalence of pediatric dental surgery among Medicaid enrollees.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e205882. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5882
ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson  KW, Barry  MJ,  et al.  Screening and interventions to prevent dental caries in children younger than 5 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.   JAMA. 2021;326(21):2172-2178. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.20007
ArticleGoogle Scholar


James  P, Harding  M, Beecher  T,  et al.  Impact of reducing water fluoride on dental caries and fluorosis.   J Dent Res. 2021;100(5):507-514. doi:10.1177/0022034520978777PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Wright  JT, Hanson  N, Ristic  H, Whall  CW, Estrich  CG, Zentz  RR.  Fluoride toothpaste efficacy and safety in children younger than 6 years: a systematic review.   J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(2):182-189. doi:10.14219/jada.2013.37PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.  Fluoride therapy. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2020:288-291.


Weyant  RJ, Tracy  SL, Anselmo  TT,  et al; American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs Expert Panel on Topical Fluoride Caries Preventive Agents.  Topical fluoride for caries prevention: executive summary of the updated clinical recommendations and supporting systematic review.   J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(11):1279-1291. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Panel on Community Water Fluoridation.  U.S. Public Health Services recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for the prevention of dental caries.   Public Health Rep. 2015;130(5):1-14. doi:10.1177/003335491513000408PubMedGoogle Scholar


Lenzi  TL, Montagner  AF, Soares  FZ, de Oliveira Rocha  R.  Are topical fluorides effective for treating incipient carious lesions?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(2):84-91.e1. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2015.06.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Bhagavatula  P, Curtis  A, Broffitt  B, Weber-Gasparoni  K, Warren  J, Levy  SM.  The relationships between fluoride intake levels and fluorosis of late-erupting permanent teeth.   J Public Health Dent. 2018;78(2):165-174. doi:10.1111/jphd.12260PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Panel on Community Water Fluoridation.  U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries.   Public Health Rep. 2015;130(4):318-331. doi:10.1177/003335491513000408PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Chou  R, Cantor  A, Zakher  B, Mitchell  JP, Pappas  M.  Prevention of dental caries in children younger than 5 years old: systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.


dos Santos  AP, Nadanovsky  P, de Oliveira  BH.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of fluoride toothpastes on the prevention of dental caries in the primary dentition of preschool children.   Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41(1):1-12. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00708.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


National Research Council.  Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academy Press; 2006.


Grandjean  P.  Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review.   Environ Health. 2019;18(1):110. doi:10.1186/s12940-019-0551-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Aggeborn  L, Oehman  M.  The effects of fluoride in drinking water.   J Polit Econ. 2021;129(2):465-491. doi:10.1086/711915Google ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Guth  S, Hüser  S, Roth  A,  et al.  Contribution to the ongoing discussion on fluoride toxicity.   Arch Toxicol. 2021;95(7):2571-2587. Published online June 6, 2021. doi:10.1007/s00204-021-03072-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Guth  S, Hüser  S, Roth  A,  et al.  Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses.   Arch Toxicol. 2020;94(5):1375-1415. Published online May 8, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00204-020-02725-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Community water fluoridation exposure: a review of neurological and cognitive effects – a 2020 update. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33600099


Southwell  BG, Niederdeppe  J, Cappella  JN,  et al.  Misinformation as a Misunderstood Challenge to Public Health.   Am J Prev Med. 2019;57(2):282-285. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Krishna  A, Thompson  TL.  Misinformation About Health: A Review of Health Communication and Misinformation Scholarship.   Am Behav Sci. 2021;65(2):316-332. doi:10.1177/0002764219878223Google ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Pennycook  G, Epstein  Z, Mosleh  M, Arechar  AA, Eckles  D, Rand  DG.  Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online.   Nature. 2021;592(7855):590-595. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Tan  AS, Lee  CJ, Chae  J.  Exposure to health (mis) information: Lagged effects on young adults’ health behaviors and potential pathways.   J Commun. 2015;65:674-698. doi:10.1111/jcom.12163Google ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


American Cancer Society. Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk. 2017. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Fluoridated Water. 2017. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet#can-fluoridated-water-cause-cancer


Barberio  AM, Quiñonez  C, Hosein  FS, McLaren  L.  Fluoride exposure and reported learning disability diagnosis among Canadian children: Implications for community water fluoridation.   Can J Public Health. 2017;108(3):e229-e239. doi:10.17269/CJPH.108.5951PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Archer  NP, Napier  TS, Villanacci  JF.  Fluoride exposure in public drinking water and childhood and adolescent osteosarcoma in Texas.   Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27(7):863-868. doi:10.1007/s10552-016-0759-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Barberio  AM, Hosein  FS, Quiñonez  C, McLaren  L.  Fluoride exposure and indicators of thyroid functioning in the Canadian population: implications for community water fluoridation.   J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(10):1019-1025. doi:10.1136/jech-2017-209129PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Chi  DL, Basson  AA.  Surveying Dentists’ Perceptions of Caregiver Refusal of Topical Fluoride.   JDR Clin Trans Res. 2018;3(3):314-320. doi:10.1177/2380084418761846PubMedGoogle Scholar


Swire-Thompson  B, Lazer  D.  Public Health and Online Misinformation: Challenges and Recommendations.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:433-451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Basch  CH, Milano  N, Hillyer  GC.  An assessment of fluoride related posts on Instagram.   Health Promot Perspect. 2019;9(1):85-88. doi:10.15171/hpp.2019.11PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Basch  CH, Ethan  D, Cadorett  V, Kollia  B, Clark  A.  An assessment of the readability of online material related to fluoride.   J Prev Interv Community. 2019;47(1):5-13. doi:10.1080/10852352.2018.1547304PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Basch  CH, Blankenship  EB, Goff  ME,  et al.  Fluoride-related YouTube videos: A cross-sectional study of video contents by upload sources.   J Dent Hyg. 2018;92(6):47-53.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Neiswanger  K, McNeil  DW, Foxman  B,  et al.  Oral Health in a Sample of Pregnant Women from Northern Appalachia (2011-2015).   Int J Dent. 2015;2015:469376. doi:10.1155/2015/469376PubMedGoogle Scholar


O’Brien  BC, Harris  IB, Beckman  TJ, Reed  DA, Cook  DA.  Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.   Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Dahl  ZT, Marquart  NA, Brown  LJ,  et al. Opposition to the age one dental visit by dentists. Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://iadr.abstractarchives.com/efs/20iags/3305811_Dahl.pdf


Marquart  NA, Dahl  ZT, Brown  LJ,  et al. Influence of researchers on mother-child dental experience. Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia. Accessed March 3, 2022. https://iadr.abstractarchives.com/abstract/20iags-3314655/influence-of-researchers-on-mother-child-dental-experience


Burgette  JM, Dahl  ZT, Weyant  RJ, McNeil  DW, Foxman  B, Marazita  ML.  Opposition to early dental visit by dentists: a qualitative study on mothers’ social networks.   JDR Clin Trans Res. Published online December 18, 2021. doi:10.1177/23800844211059072PubMedGoogle Scholar


Lacey  A, Luff  D.  Trent Focus for Research and Development in Primary Health Care: An Introduction to Qualitative Analysis. Trent Focus; 2001.


Brooks  J, McCluskey  S, Turley  E, King  N.  The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research.   Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(2):202-222. doi:10.1080/14780887.2014.955224PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Patton  MQ.  Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications; 2014.


Boeije  H.  A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews.   Qual Quant. 2002;36(4):391-409. doi:10.1023/A:1020909529486Google ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Hovland  CI, Weiss  W.  The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness.   Public Opin Q. 1951;15(4):635-650. Accessed June 21, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2745952 doi:10.1086/266350Google ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Cooper  J, Croyle  RT.  Attitudes and attitude change.   Annu Rev Psychol. 1984;35:395-426. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.002143PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Wang  Y, McKee  M, Torbica  A, Stuckler  D.  Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media.   Soc Sci Med. 2019;240:112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552PubMedGoogle Scholar


US Department of Health and Human Services. Confronting health misinformation: the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. 2021:8-10. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf


American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry.  Policy on the dental home. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry; 2020:43-44.


Salama  F, Kebriaei  A.  Oral care for infants: a survey of Nebraska general dentists.   Gen Dent. 2010;58(3):182-187.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Brickhouse  TH, Unkel  JH, Kancitis  I, Best  AM, Davis  RD.  Infant oral health care: a survey of general dentists, pediatric dentists, and pediatricians in Virginia.   Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(2):147-153.PubMedGoogle Scholar


Garg  S, Rubin  T, Jasek  J, Weinstein  J, Helburn  L, Kaye  K.  How willing are dentists to treat young children?: a survey of dentists affiliated with Medicaid managed care in New York City, 2010.   J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(4):416-425. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0135PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Malcheff  S, Pink  TC, Sohn  W, Inglehart  MR, Briskie  D.  Infant oral health examinations: pediatric dentists’ professional behavior and attitudes.   Pediatr Dent. 2009;31(3):202-209. doi:10.1308/135576109789389388PubMedGoogle Scholar


Mofidi  M, Rozier  RG, King  RS.  Problems with access to dental care for Medicaid-insured children: what caregivers think.   Am J Public Health. 2002;92(1):53-58. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.1.53PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Kranz  AM, Lee  J, Divaris  K, Baker  AD, Vann  W  Jr.  North Carolina physician-based preventive oral health services improve access and use among young Medicaid enrollees.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(12):2144-2152. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0927PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge


Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies.  Improving Access to Oral Health Care for Vulnerable and Underserved Populations. The National Academies Press; 2011.


Ruben  BD.  Communication theory and health communication practice: the more things change, the more they stay the same.   Health Commun. 2016;31(1):1-11. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.923086PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref ejournals@cambridge