In this article
Community water fluoridation in Kentucky has a decades-long history of exceptionally high compliance and measurable impacts on oral health. This article explores the most up-to-date statistics on fluoride levels, coverage rates, and associated outcomes, offering a concise data-driven look at Kentucky’s standing relative to surrounding regions.
Historically, Kentucky has maintained some of the highest fluoridation compliance rates in the country. Today, near-universal coverage continues to distinguish the Commonwealth, while ongoing research sheds light on dental caries reduction, cost savings, and demographic trends. Below is a comprehensive examination of the numbers that define Kentucky’s water fluoridation landscape.
Here are four core data points that illustrate Kentucky’s fluoridation status and its broader implications.
With these figures in mind, the following sections present a deeper dive into Kentucky’s historical trends, current coverage, and documented benefits, along with comparative data from nearby states.
Evaluating Kentucky’s historical progression is essential to understanding its present-day success. Below are several notable statistics that illustrate how compliance and coverage have evolved over time.
These improvements have been credited to robust regulatory frameworks and consistent monitoring. The table below underscores Kentucky’s rising compliance percentages across key milestones.
Year | Compliance Rate (%) |
---|---|
1994 | 88.0 |
2004 | 99.6 |
2022 | 99.7 |
The progression from the 1950s to the present illustrates Kentucky’s commitment to maintaining fluoride levels within recommended ranges for the majority of residents.
Examining coverage rates reveals Kentucky’s place as a national leader. The following statistics highlight the extent of access to fluoridated water across different states and populations.
Across the Midwest and Southeast, Kentucky significantly outperforms peers. The table below presents selected state coverage data for immediate comparison.
State | % Population Fluoridated (2022) |
---|---|
Kentucky | 99.7 |
Tennessee | 76.4 |
West Virginia | 69.8 |
Ohio | 75.1 |
Indiana | 68.9 |
Virginia | 73.5 |
Such broad coverage rates set Kentucky apart in the region, representing a substantial achievement in public health infrastructure and oversight.
Fluoridation’s clinical benefits are widely reported, and Kentucky’s data help clarify its role in managing dental caries and related healthcare expenditures.
While fluoridation lowers treatment costs, pockets of untreated decay persist among low-income communities. Nonetheless, broad-scale financial benefits serve as a key driver for continuing the program. The table below highlights notable economic and clinical metrics tied to fluoridation.
Metric | Value |
---|---|
Average Caries Reduction | 25% |
One-Community Caries Increase After Ending Fluoridation | 51% |
Medicaid Savings per Enrollee | $32.19/year |
Untreated Decay Rate (KY) | 25% |
Untreated Decay Rate (WV) | 32% |
These data points underscore the measurable impact fluoridation has on oral health outcomes and the associated cost-efficiencies for both consumers and government programs.
Beyond broad coverage metrics and statewide averages, local and regional trends help illuminate fluoridation’s role in addressing oral health challenges.
These patterns suggest that while Kentucky leads in fluoridation access, regional variations in infrastructure and dental services influence health outcomes. The following table provides a snapshot of known disparities and infrastructure indicators.
Regional Statistic | Value |
---|---|
Number of Schools with Fluoridation | 12 |
Projected Cost Increase if 10–30% Opt Out | $19.7–$59.1 million |
Non-Core County Fluoridation (Surrounding States) | 61.2% |
KY Appalachian Rural Provider Gap | Shortage recognized |
Overall, the data illustrate how local resources and coverage rates can affect dental health, even in a state with nearly universal access.
Collectively, these data emphasize Kentucky’s longstanding commitment to fluoridation and its broad, positive effect on oral health outcomes. Although challenges persist in certain rural or underserved areas, the overall numbers reflect a strong track record of cost savings and caries reduction. Future analyses will likely expand on these observations by examining additional demographic breakouts and localized health patterns.
In this article