Cited by 8Gut microbiota and healthFluoride Effects and RemovalOral microbiology and periodontitis research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 85 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Effect of Fluoride on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review

Open access

Abstract

Context: Fluoride can prevent dental caries by inhibiting demineralization and promoting remineralization of teeth while affecting the physiology of oral microbiota, thus inhibiting cellular enzymes. However, the effect of systemic fluoride on gut microbiota is unknown. Objective: To explore the impacts of systemic fluoride on gut microbiota composition and abundance and associated functions such as gene and metabolic regulation. Data Sources: A systematic database search was conducted of MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase to find articles on studies reporting the effects of fluoride on gut microbiota. Data Extraction: Forty-nine studies were included (n = 42 in animals, 4 of humans, 3 in vitro studies) after screening for title, abstract, and full text using Covidence to check against eligibility criteria. Data were extracted using Covidence and study quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool by 2 reviewers independently. Data Analysis: Two human studies of dental fluorosis and 1 of patients with breast cancer (intestinal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake) showed significant differences in gut microbial composition, with increased relative abundance of Acidobacteria and Proteobacteria, and decreased abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. An ex vivo study of human feces indicated that ≤ 2 mg L–1 NaF might boost “health-associated” taxa, but concentrations (≥ 10 mg L–1 NaF) could increase the ratio of some unhealthy microbes after 24 hours. The animal studies examined the effects of high fluoride doses in water and diet (50-1200 mg L–1 NaF) for long-term (1-6 months) and short-term (6 hours to 7 days) exposure, with all showing a significant disturbance in the Firmicutes to Bacteroidota ratio. Conclusion: In humans, high doses potentially may be detrimental to the microbiome, whereas ≤ 2 mg L–1 NaF had positive effects. Similarly, in animals, ≥ 50 mg L–1 NaF was unsafe, whereas ≤ 25 mg L–1 NaF had harmless effects. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration No. CRD42022347357.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review of 49 studies found that fluoride exposure can alter gut microbiota composition and function, with low doses (≤2 mg/L NaF in humans, ≤25 mg/L in animals) appearing harmless or potentially beneficial and higher doses (≥10 mg/L in humans, ≥50 mg/L in animals) associated with detrimental shifts. However, evidence is dominated by animal and in vitro studies, and heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis.

Key findings

  • Forty-nine studies were included: 42 animal, 4 human, and 3 in vitro; animal studies totaled 3249 animals and human studies totaled 217 participants. Human studies of dental fluorosis and breast cancer 18F-FDG uptake showed significant gut microbial composition differences, with increased relative abundance of Acidobacteria and Proteobacteria and decreased Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes.
  • An ex vivo human feces study indicated ≤2 mg/L NaF might boost “health-associated” taxa such as Faecalibacterium and Lactobacillus, while ≥10 mg/L NaF increased Proteobacteria after 24 hours. In vitro studies using 0.1–100 mM NaF showed a biphasic response: 0.1 mM promoted bacterial growth, whereas 10–100 mM inhibited lactobacilli.
  • Animal studies examined high fluoride doses in water and diet (50–1200 mg/L NaF) for long-term (1–6 months) and short-term (6 hours to 7 days) exposure, with all showing a significant disturbance in the Firmicutes to Bacteroidota ratio. The most consistent findings at high doses were lower Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia and increased Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Desulfobacterota, and Proteobacteria.
  • The review concluded that in humans high doses may be detrimental to the microbiome, whereas ≤2 mg/L NaF had positive effects; in animals, ≥50 mg/L NaF was unsafe, whereas ≤25 mg/L NaF had harmless effects. Quality assessment rated 79% of included studies as high quality by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Methods

  • Systematic review conducted per PRISMA and Cochrane Handbook, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347357). Searches were run in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase in July 2022, with reruns in July 2023 and 2024, plus reference-list and citation tracking; only English-language publications were included.
  • Eligible studies included humans, animals, and in vitro models exposed to any fluoride source, with gut microbiome DNA/sequencing outcomes. From 1004 identified records, 590 were screened at title/abstract, 73 underwent full-text screening, and 49 were included. Data were extracted in Covidence, and quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool by 2 reviewers independently.
  • Data were synthesized narratively using figures and tables, with subgroup analysis by fluoride dose and duration. Results could not be statistically pooled because of heterogeneity.

Limitations

  • Stated: limited human studies make conclusions difficult; most included studies were animal-based and used very high fluoride doses (25 mg/L NaF in water) compared with the WHO safe intake for humans (0.8–1.7 mg/L NaF in water). Extrapolating to humans is difficult due to differences in fluoride sensitivity, intestinal barrier functions, and metabolic rates.
  • Stated: high inconsistency among reported outcomes prevented pooling; mechanisms linking bacterial composition changes to metabolic dysfunction remain unconfirmed; population studies did not mention the dose responsible for fluorosis; more low-dose long-term human studies and in vitro MIC/MBC/time-kill analyses are needed.
  • Evident from the text: substantial heterogeneity in animal models, biomarkers, sequencing workflows, and outcome reporting; some studies involved co-exposures (e.g., arsenic, PFOA, exercise, probiotics), and some alpha/beta diversity numeric data were unavailable for tables.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nutrit/nuae202

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for screening of studies
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for screening of studiesCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

51 Not checked yet · 23 No full text of the sources · 22 Own result · 19 No basis given · 17 Own interpretation · 16 Own method · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 20 references — free account

Show all 77 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 50
76 of 76
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No previously published systematic reviews have highlighted the impacts of fluoride with a specific target on gut microbiota and its associated functions.

    “To our knowledge, no previously published systematic reviews have highlighted the impacts of fluoride with a specific target on gut microbiota and its associated functions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Doses effective for gut microbiota still need to be recognized, and human intervention trials are relatively limited.

    “Doses effective for gut microbiota still need to be recognized; human intervention trials are relatively limited.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes in alpha diversity indices in fluoride-treated groups compared with controls indicate that fluoride is affecting the microbial community structure.

    “An increase or decrease in alpha diversity indices,77 with Chao 1 used to estimate the number of species in a community and the Shannon and Simpson indices used to estimate the abundance of each species,28,78 in fluoride-treated groups when compared with control groups indicates fluoride is affecting the microbial community structure.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acidobacteriota contain genes that can degrade polysaccharides and are involved in pentose and glucuronate interconversion.

    “Acidobacteriota contain the genes that can degrade polysaccharides and are involved in pentose and glucuronate interconversion (carbohydrate metabolism).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes in gut microbiota composition causally mediate the metabolic and health effects attributed to fluoride.

    “The mechanisms linking changes in bacterial composition to metabolic dysfunction have not been confirmed”
    “Shifts in any of these aspects of the microbial community can lead to health implications.”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

8 of 8

Citations

Cites

Show all 90 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Looi, 2020, The human microbiome: everything you need to know about the 39 trillion microbes that call our bodies home, Sci Focus
  2. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, 2010, Critical Review of Any New Evidence on the Hazard Profile, Health Effects, and Human Exposure to Fluoride and the Fluoridating Agents of Drinking Water
  3. Fawell, 2006, Fluoride in Drinking-Water
  4. Parthasaradh, 2018, Fluoride effect on minimum inhibitory concentration and growth dynamics of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus salivarius, World J Pharm Res, 7, 1024

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Authors
Yasin, M., Zohoori, F. V., Kumah, E. A., Subramanian, M., Dean, P., & Orr, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Teesside University (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Orr, Caroline Hayley
Venue
Nutrition Reviews
Published
2025-03-10
Volume
83
Issue
7
Pages
e1853-e1880
ISSN
  • 0029-6643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-4887
OpenAlex
W4408301180
Cited by
8
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LSTM Online Archive (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Teesside University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Keywords
fluoride, gut microbiota, systemic fluoride, dental fluorosis, sodium fluoride, Acidobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, dental caries, fluoride exposure, breast cancer, FDG uptake
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Dental Caries, Fluorides, Humans, Fluorosis, Dental

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review