In this article
Community water fluoridation continues to play a central role in Tennessee’s efforts to reduce dental caries and improve oral health. In recent years, however, updated data reflects shifting trends in coverage levels, rural-urban disparities, and economic impacts on dental care costs.
This article compiles key statistical findings from the past two decades. It examines statewide adoption levels, highlights changing coverage rates, and explores how Tennessee compares with neighboring states in maintaining optimal fluoridation. The numbers below are presented to offer readers a comprehensive snapshot of the latest fluoride data available.
The following sections break down additional data surrounding the historical trends, geographic disparities, and health outcomes observed in Tennessee’s water fluoridation efforts. Tables and lists are included for clarity and citation value.
These statistics illustrate coverage fluctuations over the past two decades, spotlighting the peak period and more recent declines.
The overall absolute decline from 2004 to the present indicates a noticeable shift in Tennessee’s fluoridation priorities among certain communities.
Year | % CWS Fluoridated | Notable Change |
---|---|---|
2004 | 95.2% | Peak coverage statewide |
2012 | ~93.7% | Gradual decline begins |
2020 | 88.4% | 5.3% drop from 2006 levels |
2023 | 88.3% | Lowest point since early 2000s |
Differences in fluoridation rates can vary significantly across Tennessee’s urban centers and rural communities.
Such disparities underscore the importance of rural infrastructure and operator training in maintaining consistent fluoridation practices.
Total CWS | % Meeting 0.7 ppm | # Systems Below Optimal | # Counties at 0% Fluoridation |
---|---|---|---|
572 | 88.8% | 64 | 6 |
The chart above highlights the distribution of compliant systems and indicates that a small number of counties maintain no fluoridation at all.
When viewed alongside neighboring states, Tennessee’s coverage still surpasses some parts of the Southeast but trails behind other states with mandatory fluoridation policies.
Statewide requirements in Kentucky, Virginia, and Georgia generally help those states sustain their higher rates of coverage compared to Tennessee’s local-choice model.
State | % CWS Fluoridated | Population Served |
---|---|---|
Kentucky | 99.9% | 4.3M |
Virginia | 95.5% | 7.8M |
Georgia | 95.1% | 9.5M |
Tennessee | 88.3% | 6.3M |
Alabama | 82.4% | 3.8M |
Mississippi | 61.1% | 2.2M |
Multiple research findings highlight the direct benefits of community water fluoridation for oral health outcomes and economic savings.
Economic advantages extend beyond individual treatments, reflecting both public health and reduced cost burdens on healthcare systems statewide.
Benefit Category | Statistic |
---|---|
Annual Statewide Savings | $126 million (2023) |
Lifetime Dental Cost Reduction per Child | $2,400 |
Reduced Dental Referral Disparity | 5:1 ratio in low-income areas |
By mitigating costly treatments and preventable dental emergencies, fluoridation remains a highly cited preventive measure among oral health experts.
These statistics illustrate both the historical success and recent coverage declines of Tennessee’s community water fluoridation. Although current coverage levels remain relatively high compared to some southern states, considerable gaps exist in rural counties, and the overall downward trend underscores the importance of consistent fluoridation practices for optimal oral health.
In this article