This study aimed to examine the fluoride concentration of commercially available bottled water products in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and to assess the accuracy of the labeling of fluoride concentration on the tested brands. Fifteen randomly selected commercial brands of bottled water were obtained from supermarkets in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three bottles of each brand were purchased, and fluoride content was measured using a combination fluoride-ion-selective electrode. The average reading for each brand was estimated and also compared with the fluoride content printed on the label. The mean (±SD) fluoride content of the 12 local bottled water samples was 0.79 (±0.09) mg/L with a range from 0.5 to 0.83 mg/L. The mean fluoride concentration of the three imported brands was 0.67 (±0.02) mg/L with a narrow range of fluoride content (0.65-0.69). All tested samples mention the fluoride content on the label except two imported brands. Five samples showed a significant difference between our evaluation and stated content of fluoride that ranged between +0.46 and -0.2 mg/L. Bottled drinking waters available in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia contain differing concentration of fluoride, but within a safe range for use as a source of systemic fluoride. In addition, the manufactures' labeling of fluoride content may be inaccurate.

Read the latest articles of The Saudi Dental Journal at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier’s leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature

Objective: This study aims to assess the orthodontic diagnostic skills, referral patterns, and the perceptions of orthodontic benefits of pediatric and general dentists in comparison with orthodontists. Materials and methods Two online surveys were e-mailed to pediatric dentists, general dentistry practitioners, and orthodontists registered as members of the Saudi Dental Society and the Saudi Orthodontic Society. The surveys included questions about the type of orthodontic treatment provided, referral trends, and timing; presumed benefits associated with successful orthodontic treatment; and diagnosis and treatment plans of seven cases representing different malocclusions. Results: In total, 25 orthodontists, 18 pediatric dentists, and 14 general practitioners completed the survey. Only 38.8% of pediatric dentists and 7.1% of general practitioners reported that they practiced orthodontics clinically. The perceptions of the three groups toward the benefits of orthodontic treatment were comparable in the psychosocial areas. However, the orthodontists perceived significantly lesser effects of orthodontic treatment on the amelioration of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms. Pediatric dentists tended to rate the need and urgency of treatment higher, while general practitioners tended to rate the need of treatment lower. The selected treatment plans for three early malocclusion cases showed the greatest discrepancies between the orthodontists and the other two groups. Conclusions: The orthodontists consistently and significantly downplayed the perceived benefit of orthodontic treatment to reduce TMD symptoms. Also, while there was a similarity in the diagnosis, there were notable differences in the proposed treatment approaches, perceived treatment need, and timing of intervention between the three groups of practitioners.

Aldrees AM. Korean J Orthod. 2016 May;46(3):180-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.3.180