{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022556390977443608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.951219512195122, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Strategies in the Design of Preventive Programs

Dental caries is mostly recorded at the cavity level only. A reduced mean number of cavities in new age cohorts is often thought of as a result of prevention of the disease, dental caries. However, what is measured is rather our success in controlling the disease in such a way that prevalence of its more severe manifestations (cavities) can be reduced in children. Caries lesions and periodontal breakdown are cumulative with age and progress steadily in all populations. Thus, caries is the predominant reason for tooth loss in almost all age groups. The low prevalence and skewed distribution of dental caries make several fluoride programs less (if at all) cost-effective. Rather than considering a "whole population strategy" as opposed to a "high-risk strategy", it is argued that they should go hand in hand. However, the high-risk strategy may appear to have an unfavorable ratio of benefits to costs. So far the available literature shows no evidence that we have tests which, with sufficient predictive power, can identify groups or individuals of "high risk". It is therefore concluded that a population strategy should be maintained and further developed with emphasis on oral hygiene, because it influences norms and behavior. More knowledge about the pathogenesis of oral disease is needed before we can develop truly cost-effective strategies for the prevention of caries and periodontal breakdown.