In this article
Montana’s water fluoridation statistics have shown notable shifts over the past two decades. Rates of fluoridation vary substantially by region, creating a patchwork of coverage across the state and contributing to differences in oral health outcomes. This article focuses on presenting comprehensive data and trends surrounding water fluoridation in Montana.
To set the stage, this overview highlights how coverage has changed, which communities rely on natural fluoride, and how Montana’s fluoridation rates compare to nearby states. By focusing on clear data points and tables, this article provides an accessible statistical resource on this public health topic.
This initial snapshot underscores how Montana’s fluoridation rates sit well below the national average. Below, we explore the data in more depth and compare Montana’s status to its neighbors in the Northern Rockies.
Monitoring trends over multiple years helps clarify the gradual shifts and current standing of fluoridation across Montana’s public water systems.
These percentages reveal a pattern of gradual gains followed by slight declines. The table below provides selected data points, illustrating Montana’s coverage changes.
Year | Estimated Coverage (%) | Major Shift Noted |
---|---|---|
2000 | 22.2 | Baseline reference |
2006 | 31.3 | Gradual increase from early 2000s |
2018 | 33.7 | Peak coverage observed |
2020 | 30.7 | Decline post system consolidations |
2025 | Data collection ongoing | Future analysis |
The data demonstrate that Montana’s rates remain among the lowest in the nation, underscoring both the challenges and the potential for improvement.
Neighboring states in the Northern Rockies provide valuable context for understanding Montana’s standing in a regional landscape.
These comparisons place Montana second from the bottom in the Northern Rockies region. The table below outlines these relative positions more fully.
State | 2022 Fluoridation Rate (%) | U.S. Rank |
---|---|---|
North Dakota | 96.5 | 4 |
South Dakota | 84.1 | 15 |
Wyoming | 58.9 | 32 |
Idaho | 31.0 | 47 |
Montana | 30.7 | 48 |
Washington | 64.2 | 28 |
This distribution underscores the wide gap between states such as North Dakota and Montana, with implications for oral health outcomes seen in each region.
In addition to community coverage rates, dental caries prevalence and related dental health measures shed further light on the impact of limited fluoridation in Montana.
These findings suggest that low fluoridation rates can correspond with higher caries incidence. Below is a simplified comparison of third-grade dental caries prevalence in selected areas.
Location | Third-Grade Caries Prevalence (%) |
---|---|
Montana (Overall) | 62 |
Rural Native Communities | 84 |
North Dakota (Overall) | 41 |
National Average | 51.5 |
This table underscores the need to examine fluoride levels alongside broader oral health efforts, particularly in underserved or geographically isolated areas.
Financial and infrastructure components play a key role in shaping Montana’s overall fluoridation coverage and maintenance.
These data points underscore the resource-intensive nature of maintaining consistent fluoride levels across Montana’s diverse terrain. The table below captures select economic factors related to water fluoridation in the state.
Metric | Value |
---|---|
Annual Medicaid Pediatric Restorations (2023) | $12.7 million |
Preventable Dental Costs Attributed to Low Fluoridation | $42 million per year |
Mobile Fluoridation Units in Use | 15 Systems |
Infrastructure Grants Awarded Since 2022 | $4.1 million |
Montana’s terrain and changing water sources create added complexities in implementing stable fluoridation, which partially explains the below-average rates seen above.
Overall, these figures demonstrate an ongoing challenge in securing widespread water fluoridation for Montana’s residents. Geographical barriers, low implementation rates, and significant oral health disparities highlight the importance of consistent data monitoring and targeted community approaches to address coverage gaps.
In this article