Steve,
a great reply over which I can agree for the greatest part, except a few
points:
> > thanks for replying back could u please provide detail on the answer as all
> > i see is u just added both nuber but how would u calculate the percentage
With ZERO as a result it doesn´t matter whether it means number of
children, teeth or percentage.
> I doubt very much you are going to find usable data. First of all,
> 0.6-1.0 ppm is generally considered the range for effective water
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> etc. that in most parts of the world it would be difficult in vivo to
> determine the average increase in actual dose.
It is already next to impossible to determine the average (nor
individual) actual dose without an "increase".
> In any case, the bulk of recent research tends to indicate that the
> primary mode of caries inhibition is topical exposure. I think it would
> be difficult to impossible to demonstrate a benefit for an incremental
> increase in fluoride concentration within the generally accepted
> therapeutic concentration.
It also was "difficult" back in Dean´s times without the so-called
"halo" effect. There was no demonstrated benefit if you look carefully
at Dean´s statistics.
Regards,
Peter

Signature
-History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-:
--- http://PMeiers.bei.t-online.de/index.htm ---
----------------------------------------------------
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS - 10 Nov 2004 14:24 GMT
> Steve,
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Regards,
> Peter
The OP's original query sounded a little bit like a homework assignment
to me.
Steve

Signature
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Akbar - 11 Nov 2004 01:04 GMT
actually that was the question asked in exam
> Steve,
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> Regards,
> Peter