"to debunk the claim that fluoride creates good dental health. If fluoride does what its adherents claim it does, someone from Vallejo, or any other municipality that fed fluoridation to its children and adults, should have superior dental health."

This is an example of poor quality reasoning. (I'm trying not to sound offensive). Let me demonstrate, please.

What you suggest is anecdotal evidence which is notoriously some of the worst evidence. If 1000 people received fluoride in drinking water, would it be reasonable to take 1 person from the 1000, examine their teeth, and base all findings on that one person? 

How do you know what his diet was like? How do you know if he ever brushed his teeth or flossed or went to the dentist or had a nutritional deficiency?

That's why the larger the sample the better quality the results - it tends to compensate for anomalies.

On top of that, anecdotes frequently reflect how the person feels about a topic, not what actually happened.