Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Marilia Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, Anne Maguire, Roy Sanderson, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Stefania Martignon, Edgar O Beltran, Fatemeh Eskandari, Jelena Kronic, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Flavia Mauad Levy
{"title":"Assessing Total Fluoride Intake in Children: Reliability of Commonly Used Methods.","authors":"Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Marilia Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, Anne Maguire, Roy Sanderson, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Stefania Martignon, Edgar O Beltran, Fatemeh Eskandari, Jelena Kronic, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Flavia Mauad Levy","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Fluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.70015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Fluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.
Methods: A total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.
Results: The questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.
Conclusion: This first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome.
The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry.
The journal is published bimonthly.