Liquid cavity treatment, used in other countries, could benefit U.S. kids, researchers say 53%

By Courtenay Harris Bond52%

7/30/2026, 1:46:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 730 faulty-reasoning hits from 565 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.9% and a BS Rank of 53% (13,552 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.00% of the article peer group.

An inexpensive liquid treatment should get approval in the United States as a non-invasive, painless way to treat tooth decay, particularly in children, the researchers behind a new study say. 
The treatment, called silver diamine fluoride, has been used for decades outside of the United States to combat cavities without the need for fillings. 
But in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration only has it approved it to treat tooth sensitivity, which occurs when the outer layer of tooth enamel wears down, exposing a softer, under layer. 
MORE: More women are drinking during pregnancy despite warnings that it is unsafe 
Taking into account a growing body of research indicating the effectiveness of silver diamine fluoride for tooth decay, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2017 recommended the off-label use of silver diamine fluoride to treat cavities in children and adolescents, including those with special health needs. 
Health providers sometimes prescribe FDA-approved medications for other uses they deem safe, known as off-label use. 
The FDA has been unable to approve silver diamine fluoride for cavities because it has lacked data from large clinical trials showing its effectiveness and safety among the U.S. population. 
But a new clinical trial conducted in the United States bolsters the argument for the FDA to approve silver diamine fluoride for tooth decay, the researchers say. 
The study found silver diamine fluoride effectively stopped tooth decay in more than half of children's baby teeth treated every six months with the liquid. 
The study enrolled 830 children under 6 through dental offices, pediatric clinics and Head Start programs in Michigan, New York and Iowa. 
"This is a very effective and safe treatment  even in children as young as one," Margherita Fontana, professor of dentistry at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry and the study's lead researcher, said in a news release. 
The treatment is applied to a cavity with a sponge-tipped applicator. 
It stops tooth decay within a few seconds, eliminating the need for shots, drilling and sedation. 
Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem in young people. 
More than 1 in 10 children ages 2 to 5, and 1 in 5 children ages 6 to 8, have at least one untreated cavity, according to 2024 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Untreated cavities can lead to pain, tooth loss and infections. 
In rare cases, those infections can be life-threatening, the Mayo Clinic says. 
Anxiety about visiting the dentist and costs bar some children  and adults  from getting dental care, making silver diamine fluoride a viable and needed alternative, researchers said. 
The main downside of using silver diamine fluoride is that is permanently stains the site of decay on teeth. 
But applying the solution once every six months to the site of decay on baby teeth may be sufficient until the teeth fall out. 
Silver diamine fluoride is also viable as a treatment for adults to halt decay until they receive more thorough treatment, according to the study. 
"Removing SDF from off-label status would be an important innovation which could lead to increased utilization by providers, enhanced payments by insurers, and more consistent product quality," Amr Moursi, professor of pediatric dentistry at NYU College of Dentistry and a co-principal investigator on the study, said in the news release. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.8%PhillyVoice: 2.0%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 6.2%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.8%PhillyVoice: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.6%PhillyVoice: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.2%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.7%PhillyVoice: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Courtenay Harris Bond: 3.3%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.9%This article: 2.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 3.5%PhillyVoice: 3.1%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 5.1%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.7%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.1%This article: 5.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.0%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Courtenay Harris Bond: 5.3%PhillyVoice: 3.7%Optimism Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.3%PhillyVoice: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 6.0%PhillyVoice: 4.7%Negativity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.1%PhillyVoice: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.3%PhillyVoice: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.2%Courtenay Harris Bond: 11.0%PhillyVoice: 2.4%Appeal to Authority17.2%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.1%PhillyVoice: 2.9%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 2.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.1%PhillyVoice: 0.4%Red Herring2.3%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 2.7%PhillyVoice: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.3%PhillyVoice: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.2%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.5%PhillyVoice: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.2%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.8%PhillyVoice: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.0%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.9%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.9%PhillyVoice: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.9%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.4%PhillyVoice: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 3.6%PhillyVoice: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice2.3%This article: 5.3%Courtenay Harris Bond: 2.1%PhillyVoice: 1.0%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.1%PhillyVoice: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Courtenay Harris Bond: 0.6%PhillyVoice: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Courtenay Harris Bond: 1.5%PhillyVoice: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.8%

565 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers18%attributed speech464writer words
Selected voice

Amr Moursi

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words50% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Amr Moursi: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Amr Moursi: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Amr Moursi: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.