Structural Cavities in Rural Dental Health
Ohio Department of Health Many cavities can be prevented with dental sealants (shown on tooth, far left). A few states already offer sealant programs in schools.
In 2000, the federal government issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on Oral Health, emphasizing disparities across the nation. It warned that dental disease in the U.S. constituted a “silent epidemic” with profound consequences for “affected populations.”
In rural America, the “silent” epidemic is in fact strident. In February of this year, The Pew Center for the States issued new evidence that poor dental health is especially severe among rural children and adults. The Pew Center’s Dental Health Campaign reports:
• Total tooth loss among seniors increases as the population becomes more rural.
• Rural residents are more likely to have lost all of their teeth as compared to their non-rural counterparts.
• Rural adults are significantly more likely than non-rural adults to have untreated dental decay (32.6 percent compared to 25.7 percent).
• In 2001, 67.1 percent of urban residents had visited the dentist in the past year as compared to 58.3 percent in rural areas.
• The likelihood that a child will be insured for dental work declines steadily as the county of residence becomes more rural
Tennessee Today A Remote Area Volunteer Medical Corps dentist treats a patient in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 2012.
The outpouring of patients availing themselves of the Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps (RAM) , which provides free medical and dental care, offers an unvarnished view of the dental needs in rural America. In October 2011, RAM visited Grundy, Virginia in rural southwest Virginia. By 5 AM, hundreds stood in the freezing rain to see a dentist. By the end of the weekend 900 teeth had been pulled. In 2012, 17 such clinics are already planned by RAM, with similar numbers expected.
Why the discrepancies between rural and the rest of the nation? The national media has tended to focus on emotional and superficial commentary related to soft drink consumption, and to an extent the images they project and the stories they tell are embedded in tragic fact. But the whole nation is hooked on syrupy, caffeine-laced empty calories. Although not always as visible, there are structural issues at work that explain a lot.
Access to Dental Care
There is a severe shortage of dentists in many rural areas. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that at the end of 2011 there were 4,670 dental Health Professional Shortage Areas in the U.S. Sixty-five percent of those were in non-metropolitan areas. Without strong incentives to bring dentists to rural communities, this situation may only get worse. Nationally, rural areas had a higher percentage of general dentists age 56 or older than did urban areas (42% vs. 38%). In remote locations, 44%of dentists are age 56 or older.
Rural Assistance Center This map prepared by the Health Resources and Services Administration shows where the the highest priorities are for placing dental professionals. The darker the county, the greater the need for more dentists and hygienists.
Affordability
The number of dental graduates has declined over the last 30 years while the nation’s population has expanded by about 1/3. When supply decreases or demand increases, prices rise. When both happen at the same time, prices rise abruptly.
In many areas it’s difficult to find dentists willing to treat Medicaid patients. Because of low reimbursement rates, paperwork burdens and the perception of a higher percentage of missed appointments, only 1 in 5 dentists accepts Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) patients; many such patients are rural residents. In 2008 a Congressional Subcommittee reported that 37% of children in Medicaid ages 2 through 18 received dental care. These rates are far below the Department of Health and Human Services’ target for low-income children’s preventive dental care: 66 percent.
Dental Insurance
Rural children are less likely than urban children to be covered by dental insurance, and children who lack dental insurance are markedly less likely to have made an annual dental visit. Additionally, insurance reimbursement rates – both public and private—for dental procedures are typically lower in rural areas even though the costs of providing services are often higher in rural areas.
Fluoridation
The CDC has identified community water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th Century and a major contributor to the dramatic decline in tooth decay. The American Dental Association (ADA) reports that every dollar spent on fluoridation saves $38 in dental procedures.
Rural residents are less likely than urban dwellers to have access to fluoridated water. Sixty-seven percent of the nation’s population is currently served by fluoridated water systems, but fewer small town water systems are fluoridated. Perhaps this is because water fluoridation is six times more costly per person in communities with fewer than 5,000 people than for water systems serving more than 20,000, according to the CDC. And, of course, few of the forty million Americans who get their drinking water from private wells drink fluoridated water.
New Directions
The good news is that these problems are fixable. The bad news is we’re not likely to see significant progress on these issues anytime soon. Despite the Surgeon General’s trumpeting the “silent epidemic” a dozen years ago, the nation’s dental maladies remain relatively unnoticed, perhaps because they represent less than 5% of health care spending, while the more expensive health problems command attention. Should policymakers find the political will to move forward on these issues, though, there is already widespread agreement among government agencies, associations of health professionals, foundations, and NGO’s on solutions.
The most fundamentally effective and least expensive step –no federal policy required -- is early intervention. The ADA recommends toothbrushing as soon as a child has its first tooth. No toothpaste is needed until age two. As important as cleaning teeth is feeding teeth. Children should eat more fruits and vegetables and avoid sugary drinks.
Many worthy policy ideas are being articulated to improve dental health and access to care. Here are four approaches that appear with regularity and stand out for their potential.
Ohio Department of Health Ohio's dental sealant program, in operation since the mid-1980s, serves low-income schools in most of the state. School-based or school-linked sealant programs: Sealants cost 1/3 of what a filling costs, and they don’t have to be applied by dentists. Since poor children suffer twice as much untreated tooth decay as their more prosperous peers, sealant programs targeted to schools with high risk children have proven cost-effective. Despite evidence that these programs can produce intended results and are relatively inexpensive, Pew found that only 17 states have sealant programs that reach even one-quarter of their high-risk schools; 11 states reported having no programs at all. Ohio’s sealant program has been praised by the CDC. Because poor children have little access to dental care, some pediatricians are also learning how to apply fluoride varnish on baby teeth, a simple procedure that can prevent cavities.
Fluoridation: As of 2009, there were 25 states providing less than 75% of their population (the national goal) with fluoridated water. Water fluoridation laws are set at state and local levels, and only 12 states and the District of Columbia have mandatory fluoridation laws. In areas lacking mandates, technical and financial assistance are advisable to small towns to help fluoridate water systems.
Increase government payments for dentistry: States are currently required to provide all medically needed dental services for Medicaid-enrolled children and emergency dental services only for adults. Dental services are not covered under Medicare. With only 1 in 4 dentists nationally accepting Medicaid enrolled patients, the poor and elderly are at huge disadvantages. Low-income adults and seniors would be well-served if Medicare covered dental services and if Medicaid provided preventive dentistry and included transportation as an ancillary service. It is widely recognized that raising reimbursement rates and reducing administrative procedures for dentists who, in general, have higher overhead costs than other medical providers, will be necessary to convince more dentists to accept Medicaid patients. When Tennessee and Alabama raised reimbursement and altered administrative procedures in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the number of children receiving dental services doubled in just 4 years.
Innovative workforce models: A growing number of states are exploring ways to
expand the types of skilled professionals who can provide high-quality dental health care to children. Washington state and North Carolina have pioneered projects that set the standard for training and paying physicians, nurses, and medical staff to provide preventive care to very young children. Thirty-five states now reimburse for these services through Medicaid. Dental hygienists are the primary providers in school-based sealant programs in most states, but state laws vary in how they govern this work and many state laws need to be changed.
RDH 4th year students hygienists from Southern Illinois University/Carbondale apply dental sealants on a patient. New programs that would permit non-dentists to practice some oral health care show promise for rural areas but have generally been opposed by the ADA. One of the most innovative developments -- and most controversial from the viewpoint of the American Dental Association -- has been the creation of a new position: Dental Health Aide Therapist. The dental therapist is trained to provide basic restorative and preventive services, including fillings and extractions. Advocates say that dental therapists will help people who can't afford what dentists charge or who live in remote areas where no dentists have offices. The ADA argues that only dentists are qualified to extract or prepare teeth. It should be noted that the Dental Health Aide Therapist position is modeled after a program begun in New Zealand in 1921 and now operates in over 50 countries.
The first experiment with using a dental therapists program in the United States was launched in Alaska in 2003 under the authority of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, a nonprofit health organization owned and managed by Alaska Native tribal governments and their regional health organizations. The ADA unanimously passed a resolution supporting litigation, should it become necessary, to oppose dental therapists practicing in the Tribal health care system in Alaska. The dentistry board also authorized an advertising campaign up to a $150,000 level “to educate Alaskan natives and others about the risks of allowing non-dentists to perform irreversible procedures.” In June 2007, a Superior Court judge for the State of Alaska ruled that Dental Health Aide Therapists have the right to provide dental treatment to Alaska Natives, including preventive and restorative care. The ADA dropped its lawsuit but continues to oppose the use of Dental Health Aides in restorative care.
Currently there are programs utilizing dental therapists only in Alaska and Minnesota. Oregon passed a bill last year that allows for a pilot program, and while planning is underway, the program has not yet begun. There is legislation to create dental therapist programs pending in Washington, Vermont, Kansas, New Hampshire, Maine, and California.
Daily Yonder Thirty years ago, 40% of Americans over age 65 had none of their own teeth. Today, it's 25%. On average, Americans have seen significant improvements in oral health over the last 50 years but averages include all conditions along a continuum. If we look at the continuum closely, we can begin to recognize gaps in health and well-being: low-income and rural citizens have less health insurance, are less likely to have flouridated water, receive less dental health care and experience more dental decay and tooth loss.
Dental costs amount to a small percentage of medical costs overall, but failure to deal with them can lead to serious -- and very expensive -- problems. It’s evident by now that private dental practice is not always financially viable in rural areas. This means that the dental health of rural Americans will have to be addressed by government or philanthropic forces. Even as extending medical care to the uninsured remains a contentious issue, is the nation ready to listen up and heal the “silent epidemic”?
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
Sippy Cups and the plain unvarnished truth
Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early Childhood Caries:
After decades of promoting water fluoridation for the sake of disadvantaged children, the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced on December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24.4 million from the National Institutes of Health to fight early childhood caries, also known as “baby bottle tooth decay” or “nursing caries”.
Published dental literature has long noted fluoridation's failure:
1) Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl's smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
“Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents' propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children's Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.
2) Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65% among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.
3) California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch, 1995; Our Children's Teeth: Beyond Brushing and Braces.
33% of Head Start children and 13% of non-Head Start preschool children had Early Childhood Caries/Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD).
1) In non-fluoridated urban regions, 40% of Hispanic preschool children had BBTD.
2) In fluoridated urban regions, 45% of Asian Head Start preschool children had BBTD.
4) Allukian, M. Symposium Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic - What Can Be Done? Introduction: Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993. “Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay.” (Bullet #5 of 8.)
5) Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.
6) Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.
7) Watson MR et al. Caries conditions among 2-5-year-old immigrant Latino children related to parents' oral health knowledge, opinions and practices. Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8-15, 1999.
The finding of 47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary teeth does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and racial ethnic groups. (Washington D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.)
8) Weinstein P et al. Mexican-American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic. J Dent for Children; 376-83, Sept-Oct, 1992.
Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD. Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups.
9) Bruerd B et al. Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: Eight-Year Results. Public Health Reports: 111; 63-65, 1996.
In 1986, a program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in 10 states. In three years BBTD decreased from 57% to 43%. Funding was discontinued in 1990.
10) Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.
“Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply.”
11) Blen M et al. Dental caries in children under age three attending a university clinic. Pediatric Dentistry; 21:261-64, 1999.
Of 369 children who attended the University of Texas-Houston Health Center (Houston is fluoridated), 56% between 2 and 3 years old had decay. Among the 3 year olds, 46% had more than three decayed teeth. The children without decay were weaned from the bottle at an average age of 10 months. Those with severe decay were weaned at 16.9 months.
12) Kong D. City to launch battle against dental 'crisis'. Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1999.
18% of children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978.
13) Thakib AA et al. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental caries. Pediatric Dentistry; 19:37-41, 1997.
In summary, initial primary incisor caries is a risk factor for developing future carious, extracted, and restored teeth.
14) Duperon DF. Early Childhood Caries: A Continuing Dilemma. CA Dent Assoc J; 23: 15-25, 1995.
The primary precipitating factor for this 100 year old problem is prolonged use of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of age. North American Indians have reported an incidence of 53 percent, Inuit (Eskimo) children have shown a 60%-65% incidence and Mexican American migrant farm workers, 30%.
PIT AND FISSURE TOOTH DECAY
“Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), mainly on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-87.”
Selected Findings and Recommendations from the 1993/94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment.
“Because the surface-specific analysis was used, we learned that almost 90 percent of the remaining decay is found in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of children's teeth; those surfaces that are not as affected by the protective benefit of fluoride.”
Letter, August 8, 2000, from Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., CDC Atlanta GA.
“Nearly 90 percent of cavities in school children occur in the surfaces of teeth with vulnerable pits and grooves, where fluoride is least effective.”
Facts From National Institute of Dental Research. Marshall Independent Marshall, MN, 5/92.
THE DECEPTION
Fluoridation has historically been “sold” to politicians and civic leaders by using photos of rampant Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup Tooth Decay (BBTD), a highly visible decay of the upper front teeth. The cause of the decay is high levels of strep mutan bacteria. Fluoridated water at 1 ppm does not kill this bacteria that, 1) colonize on tooth surfaces, 2) thrive and multiply on sugars, and 3) pass their acidic waste onto the dental enamel causing the damage we call tooth decay.
50 percent of U.S. Head Start children have Baby Bottle/Sippy Cup tooth decay from high levels of strep mutans bacteria. A steady source of sugar is supplied to the bacteria by sipping fluids rather than drinking fluids from a cup. The bacteria's acidic waste first ravages the primary teeth and then continues on to decay the permanent teeth.
In January 2000, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, Senior Risk Assessment Scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Analysis, reviewed the 1993-94 California Oral Health Needs Assessment for the City of Escondido (Keepers-of-the-Well.org, #17 Effectiveness) and stated in her critique:
1) For preschool children, … any evaluation of the effectiveness of various measures (fluoridation) must control for the occurrence of BBTD and,
2) Any study of the effectiveness of a particular measure (fluoridation) in preventing dental caries must control for the presence of dental sealants, or the results will be meaningless. and,
3) In addition, if children with BBTD are thought to be more prone to developing caries in permanent teeth, then history of BBTD vs. caries incidence should be examined for both preschool and elementary children.
The dental literature is clear that elementary school children with a history of BBTD are indeed more prone to decay in permanent teeth. Therefore, controlling or adjusting for history of BBTD in elementary school children should be the norm but is never done! By not adjusting for BBTD history and sealants, dental studies of elementary school children can claim a (false) fluoridation benefit!
_______________
Maureen Jones
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water - www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
1205 Sierra Ave.
San Jose, CA 95126
408 297-8487
Long Road
The terrible thing is that once dental problems begin, they statistically continue throughout a patient's life. Great programs I've been a part of here in Texas which give back to rural communities are 'Dentistry from the Heart' and 'Texas Mission of Mercy'. Take Care!
-Dr. Justin Mund
Fort Worth, TX
Terrible cavities in young kids
Fluoride Prevents Operations for Cavities
Maureen Jones, as is typical for those who oppose fluoridation, uses a truth in the service of a mistaken view of fluoridation.
Baby Bottle Mouth is really a failure or parenting. No amount of fluoride can overcome the effects on teeth of constant bathing in sugar.
However, the effect of fluoridation on the terrible cavities which take young children to the operating room is truly remarkable.
A large study in Louisiana found that 2/3rds of the operations for terrible cavities in baby teeth are avoided with fluoridation. Fluoridation saved a full 50% of the dental bills for the children. These data have been confirmed now in Texas and New York.
see:
Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay -- Louisiana, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention September 03, 1999 / 48(34);753-757
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm
If this dramatic effect on the need for these operations were fluoridation's only benefit, the practice would be well justified.
The life-time benefits to which Dr. Mund refers were underscored by the findings of the recent paper showing that kids who drink fluoridated water become adults with more teeth.
See: Am J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1980-5. The association between community water fluoridation and adult tooth loss. Neidell M, Herzog K, Glied S. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724674
According to the most recent federal data, fluoridated water reaches 72 percent of Americans served by community water systems. There real reason for this is the fact that the professional public health expert community unequivocally and overwhelmingly support water fluoridation. If the ideas Ms. Jones espouses were scientifically valid, these experts would see to it that fluoridation ended.
http://www.dailyyonder.com/silent-epidemic-dentistry/2012/03/22/3824