2 l © 2025 American Dental Association
Introduction
Scientific Support for Fluoridation
The ADA’s policies regarding community water fluoridation are based on the best available scientific
knowledge. This body of knowledge results from the efforts of nationally recognized scientists who have
conducted research using the scientific method, drawn appropriate balanced conclusions based on their
research findings, and published their results in refereed (peer-reviewed) professional journals that are
highly regarded or circulated. Studies showing the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation have
been confirmed by independent scientific studies conducted by a number of nationally and internationally
recognized scientific investigators. While opponents of fluoridation have questioned its safety and
effectiveness, none of their charges has been substantiated by scientific evidence.
With the advent of the Information Age, a new type of “pseudo-scientific literature” has developed. The
public often sees scientific and technical information quoted in the press or on television or radio, printed in
a letter to the editor, or distributed via an Internet web page. Often the public accepts such information as
true simply because it is “in print.” Yet the information is not always based on research conducted according
to the scientific method, and the conclusions drawn from research are not always scientifically justifiable.
In the case of community water fluoridation, an abundance of misinformation has been circulated. Therefore,
scientific information from all print and electronic sources must be critically reviewed before conclusions can
be drawn (See Figure 1). Pseudo-scientific literature can pique a reader’s interest, but when read as science,
it can be misleading. The scientific validity and relevance of claims made by opponents of fluoridation might
be best viewed when measured against criteria set forth by the US Supreme Court.8
Additional information about this topic can be found in the Public Policy Section, Question 61.
Figure 1. A Guide to Identifying and Using Trustworthy Information
Question The Author
Actively search for study authors’ intellectual
and financial conflicts of interest that may
have affected the conduct of the study or
results interpretation.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
The fact that two things happen together
does not mean that one necessarily causes
the other.
Mice versus Humans
Wait for studies with human subjects to confirm
animal studies’ results before considering
applying the research findings in practice.
Consider The Big Picture
Identify systematic reviews that
comprehensively summarize the evidence
instead of using single studies that present
only a small part of the big picture.
High-Impact Journals
Impact factor and reputation of a journal
do not necessarily relate to the quality of
the published study in question, so always
remain skeptical.
The Right Study Design
Some clinical questions cannot be studied
using the classic randomized control trial (RCT)
study design, and non-RCT designs may be
a suitable alternative
Introduction
Scientific Support for Fluoridation
The ADA’s policies regarding community water fluoridation are based on the best available scientific
knowledge. This body of knowledge results from the efforts of nationally recognized scientists who have
conducted research using the scientific method, drawn appropriate balanced conclusions based on their
research findings, and published their results in refereed (peer-reviewed) professional journals that are
highly regarded or circulated. Studies showing the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation have
been confirmed by independent scientific studies conducted by a number of nationally and internationally
recognized scientific investigators. While opponents of fluoridation have questioned its safety and
effectiveness, none of their charges has been substantiated by scientific evidence.
With the advent of the Information Age, a new type of “pseudo-scientific literature” has developed. The
public often sees scientific and technical information quoted in the press or on television or radio, printed in
a letter to the editor, or distributed via an Internet web page. Often the public accepts such information as
true simply because it is “in print.” Yet the information is not always based on research conducted according
to the scientific method, and the conclusions drawn from research are not always scientifically justifiable.
In the case of community water fluoridation, an abundance of misinformation has been circulated. Therefore,
scientific information from all print and electronic sources must be critically reviewed before conclusions can
be drawn (See Figure 1). Pseudo-scientific literature can pique a reader’s interest, but when read as science,
it can be misleading. The scientific validity and relevance of claims made by opponents of fluoridation might
be best viewed when measured against criteria set forth by the US Supreme Court.8
Additional information about this topic can be found in the Public Policy Section, Question 61.
Figure 1. A Guide to Identifying and Using Trustworthy Information
Question The Author
Actively search for study authors’ intellectual
and financial conflicts of interest that may
have affected the conduct of the study or
results interpretation.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation
The fact that two things happen together
does not mean that one necessarily causes
the other.
Mice versus Humans
Wait for studies with human subjects to confirm
animal studies’ results before considering
applying the research findings in practice.
Consider The Big Picture
Identify systematic reviews that
comprehensively summarize the evidence
instead of using single studies that present
only a small part of the big picture.
High-Impact Journals
Impact factor and reputation of a journal
do not necessarily relate to the quality of
the published study in question, so always
remain skeptical.
The Right Study Design
Some clinical questions cannot be studied
using the classic randomized control trial (RCT)
study design, and non-RCT designs may be
a suitable alternative
