The impact of changing dental needs on cost savings from fluoridation

Water fluoridation in Australia: A systematic review

Water fluoridation is considered a safe and effective public health strategy to improve oral health. This review aimed to systematically summarize the available evidence of water fluoridation in Australia, focusing on the history, health impacts, cost effectiveness, challenges, and limitations. A systematic search was conducted on the Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Central, Cinahl, and Informit databases to identify literature on water fluoridation in Australia. A grey literature search and backward snowballing were used to capture additional literature. Primary studies, reviews, letters, and opinion papers were included in the quantitative analysis and summarized based on the year of publication and geographical location. The data were extracted from primary studies and summarized under three subheadings: history, community health impacts and the limitations and challenges. Water fluoridation in Australia was first implemented in 1953 in Tasmania. Most states and territories in Australia embraced water fluoridation by 1977 and currently, 89% of the Australian population has access to fluoridated drinking water. Studies report that water fluoridation has reduced dental caries by 26-44% in children, teenagers, and adults, benefiting everyone regardless of age, income, or access to dental care. It has been recognized as a cost-effective intervention to prevent dental caries, especially in rural and low-income areas. Water fluoridation as a public health measure has faced challenges, including political and public opposition, implementation and maintenance costs, access and equity, communication and education, and ethical concerns. Variations in research activities on water fluoridation across Australian states and territories over the last seven decades can be due to several factors, including the time of implementation, funding, and support. Ongoing monitoring and research to review and update optimal fluoride levels in drinking water in Australia is warranted to ensure sustainable benefits on oral health while preventing any adverse impacts.

Economic Evaluations of Preventive Interventions for Dental Caries and Periodontitis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To critically examine the methods used for full economic evaluations of preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis.

METHODS

Published literature post-2000 was searched to April 2021. Based on a developed intervention classification framework for dental caries and periodontitis, only universal, selective or indicated interventions were included in this review. The Drummond 10-point checklist was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Of 3,007 unique records screened for relevance, 73 studies were reviewed. Most model-based studies (61/73) used cost-effectiveness analysis (49%) or cost-benefit analysis (28%). Trial-based studies (16/73) commonly used cost-effectiveness analysis (59%). Four studies used both economic evaluation methods. Sixty-four papers (88%) were on dental caries, eight papers (11%) focused on periodontitis, and one paper (1%) included both oral diseases; 72% of model-based and 82% of trial-based studies were of good quality. The most frequently investigated dental caries preventive interventions were water fluoridation (universal intervention; cost-saving or cost-effective), fissure sealant and fluoride varnish (selective and indicated interventions; cost-effectiveness outcomes were inconsistent). Supportive periodontal therapy with oral health education (indicated intervention; cost-effective) was the most frequently evaluated preventive intervention for periodontitis. Thirty percent of studies with a time horizon > 1 year did not apply an appropriate discount rate and 26% did not comprehensively discuss other important considerations beyond the technical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Generic health outcome measures should be incorporated for economic evaluations on preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis, and an increased focus to prevent periodontitis using economic evaluation methods is needed to inform resource allocation and policy decision-making.

Evaluation of water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study

Background

Water fluoridation was introduced in the UK against a background of high dental decay within the population. Levels of decay have dramatically reduced over the last 40 years following widespread use of fluoride toothpaste.

Objective

The aim of the CATFISH (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) study was to address the question of whether or not the addition of fluoride to community drinking water, in a contemporary population, lead to a reduction in the number of children with caries and, if so, is this reduction cost-effective?

Design

A longitudinal prospective cohort design was used in two distinct recruited populations: (1) a birth cohort to assess systemic and topical effects of water fluoridation and (2) an older school cohort to assess the topical effects of drinking fluoridated water.

Setting

The study was conducted in Cumbria, UK. Broadly, the intervention group (i.e. individuals receiving fluoridated drinking water) were from the west of Cumbria and the control group were from the east of Cumbria.

Participants

Children who were lifetime residents of Cumbria were recruited. For the birth cohort, children were recruited at birth (2014–15), and followed until age 5 years. For the older school cohort, children were recruited at age 5 years (2013–14) and followed until the age of 11 years.

Intervention

The provision of a ‘reintroduced fluoridated water scheme’.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the presence or absence of decay into dentine in the primary teeth (birth cohort) and permanent teeth (older school cohort). The cost per quality-adjusted life-year was also assessed.

Results

In the birth cohort (n = 1444), 17.4% of children in the intervention group had decay into dentine, compared with 21.4% of children in the control group. The evidence, after adjusting for deprivation, age and sex, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.98), suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a modest beneficial effect. There was insufficient evidence of difference in the presence of decay in children in the older school cohort (n = 1192), with 19.1% of children in the intervention group having decay into dentine, compared with 21.9% of children in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.09). The intervention was found to be likely to be cost-effective for both the birth cohort and the older school cohort at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was no significant difference in the performance of water fluoridation on caries experience across deprivation quintiles.

Conclusions

The prevalence of caries and the impact of water fluoridation was much smaller than previous studies have reported. The intervention was effective in the birth cohort group; however, the importance of the modest absolute reduction in caries (into dentine) needs to be considered against the use of other dental caries preventative measures. Longer-term follow-up will be required to fully understand the balance of benefits and potential risks (e.g. fluorosis) of water fluoridation in contemporary low-caries populations.

Limitations

The low response rates to the questionnaires reduced their value for generalisations. The observed numbers of children with decay and the postulated differences between the groups were far smaller than anticipated and, consequently, the power of the study was affected (i.e. increasing the uncertainty indicated in the confidence intervals).

Study registration

This study is registered as Integrated Research Application System 131824 and 149278.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of community water fluoridation for schoolchildren

BACKGROUND

Community water fluoridation (CWF), the controlled addition of fluoride to the water supply for the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay), is considered a safe and effective public health intervention. The Republic of Ireland (Ireland) is the only country in Europe with a legislative mandate for the fluoridation of the public water supply, a key component of its oral health policy. However, more recently, there has been an increase in public concern around the relevance of the intervention given the current environment of multiple fluoride sources and a reported increase in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis. The aim of this economic analysis is to provide evidence to inform policy decisions on whether the continued public investment in community water fluoridation remains justified under these altered circumstances.

METHODS

Following traditional methods of economic evaluation and using epidemiological data from a representative sample of 5-, 8-, and 12-year-old schoolchildren, this cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted from the health-payer perspective, compared the incremental costs and consequences associated with the CWF intervention to no intervention for schoolchildren living in Ireland in 2017. A probabilistic model was developed to simulate the potential lifetime treatment savings associated with the schoolchildren's exposure to the intervention for one year.

RESULTS

In 2017, approximately 71% of people living in Ireland had access to a publicly provided fluoridated water supply at an average per capita cost to the state of €2.15. The total cost of CWF provision to 5-, 8-, and 12-year-old schoolchildren (n = 148,910) was estimated at €320,664, and the incremental cost per decayed, missing, or filled tooth (d3vcmft/D3vcMFT) prevented was calculated at €14.09. The potential annual lifetime treatment savings associated with caries prevented for this cohort was estimated at €2.95 million. When the potential treatment savings were included in the analysis, the incremental cost per d3vcmft/D3vcMFT prevented was -€115.67, representing a cost-saving to the health-payer and a positive return on investment. The results of the analysis were robust to both deterministic and probability sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Despite current access to numerous fluoride sources and a reported increase in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis, CWF remains a cost-effective public health intervention for Irish schoolchildren.

Quality appraisal of economic evaluations done on oral health preventive programs-A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

If economic evaluations are to be used by decision makers, such evidence has to be robust so that the relevant policy maker use them. This study was undertaken with the purpose of identifying economic evaluations done on oral health preventive programs and to assess the standard of economic evidence in this field.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using four major electronic databases in order to search for economic evaluations done on oral health preventive programs. This included economic evaluations that were published between January 1975 and May 2018 on preventive interventions for periodontal disease, oral cancer screening, and other common oral health conditions. To avoid duplications with previous studies, for dental caries interventions, this review included studies from April 2012 and May 2018. "Guidance to undertaking reviews in health care," developed by York University, was used to assess the quality of reporting in the evaluations, using which strengths and shortcomings were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 2026 records were initially found. After title and abstract screening, and elimination by full text review, 33 relevant economic evaluations were identified. Majority of the economic evaluations included were conducted on dental caries prevention; a few were done on oral cancer screening, periodontal disease, and general preventive dentistry (health promotion, oral hygiene etc.).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the findings observed in previous reviews, there has been improvements in the quality of reporting in economic evaluations. Several areas still in need for improve were identified (e.g., productivity costs, currency and prices, and generalizability issues).

Economic evaluations in water-fluoridation: a scoping review

Background

Community water fluoridation (CWF) is considered one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the twentieth century and has been a cornerstone strategies for the prevention and control of dental caries in many countries. However, for decision-makers the effectiveness and safety of any given intervention is not always sufficient to decide on the best option. Economic evaluations (EE) provide key information that managers weigh, alongside other evidence. This study reviews the relevant literature on EE in CWF.

Methods

A systematic database search up to August 2019 was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. The review included full economic evaluations on CWF programs, written in English, Spanish or Portuguese. The selection process and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed.

Results

Of 498 identified articles, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 corresponded to cost-benefit analysis; nine were cost-effectiveness analyses; and four cost-utility studies. Two cost-utility studies used Disability-Adjusted Life Years,, one used Quality-Adjusted Tooth Years, and another Quality-Adjusted Life Years. EEs were conducted in eight countries. All studies concluded that water fluoridation was a cost-effective strategy when it was compared with non-fluoridated communities, independently of the perspective, time horizon or discount rate applied. Four studies adopted a lifetime time horizon. The outcome measures included caries averted (n = 14) and savings cost of dental treatment (n = 4). Most of the studies reported a caries reduction effects between 25 and 40%.

Conclusion

Findings indicated that CWF represents an appropriate use of communities’ resources, using a range of economic evaluation methods and in different locations. These findings provide evidence to decision-makers which they could use as an aid to deciding on resource allocation.

Age-sex specific and sequela-specific disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to dental caries preventable through water fluoridation: An assessment at the national and subnational levels in Iran, 2016

We assessed disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to dental caries preventable through water fluoridation apportioned by sex, age group, sequela, province, and community type in Iran, 2016. The burden of disease due to dental caries was extracted from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 (GBD 2016) and the caries preventive effect of water fluoridation was calculated using a database of fluoride levels in drinking water. All the preventable DALYs were caused by years lived with disability (YLDs) because of the non-fatal character of dental caries. DALYs and DALY rate (per 100,000 people) preventable through water fluoridation at the national level in 2016 were 14,971 (95% uncertainty interval 7348- 24,725) and 18.73 (9.19-30.93), respectively. The national population preventable fraction (PPF) of dental caries by water fluoridation was determined to be as high as 0.176 (0.141-0.189). The share of sequelae in the preventable DALYs at the national level were estimated to be 76.8% for edentulism and severe tooth loss, 21.4% for caries of permanent teeth, and 1.8% for caries of deciduous teeth. The national DALYs and DALY rate preventable through water fluoridation exhibited no difference by sex, but considerably increased by age from 110 (37-223) and 1.5 (0.5-3.1) for the age group 0-4 y to 4331 (2334-6579) and 88.9 (47.9-135.1) for the age group 65 y and older, respectively. Over 80% of the national preventable DALYs occurred in urban areas due to higher population and lower coverage of fluoridated drinking water. The highest provincial DALYs and DALY rate preventable by water fluoridation were observed in Tehran and Gilan to be 3776 (1866-6206) and 37.2 (18.6-60.8), respectively. The results indicated that water fluoridation can play a profound role in the promotion of dental public health and compensate the spatial inequality and increasing temporal trend of health losses from dental caries at the national level.

Costs And Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation In The United States

The most comprehensive study of US community water fluoridation program benefits and costs was published in 2001. This study provides updated estimates using an economic model that includes recent data on program costs, dental caries increments, and dental treatments. In 2013 more than 211 million people had access to fluoridated water through community water systems serving 1,000 or more people. Savings associated with dental caries averted in 2013 as a result of fluoridation were estimated to be $32.19 per capita for this population. Based on 2013 estimated costs ($324 million), net savings (savings minus costs) from fluoridation systems were estimated to be $6,469 million and the estimated return on investment, 20.0. While communities should assess their specific costs for continuing or implementing a fluoridation program, these updated findings indicate that program savings are likely to exceed costs.

The costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ

BACKGROUND

Implementing community water fluoridation involves costs, but these need to be considered against the likely benefits. We aimed to assess the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation in New Zealand (NZ) in terms of expenditure and quality-adjusted life years.

METHODS

Based on published studies, we determined the risk reduction effects of fluoridation, we quantified its health benefits using standardised dental indexes, and we calculated financial savings from averted treatment. We analysed NZ water supplies to estimate the financial costs of fluoridation. We devised a method to represent dental caries experience in quality-adjusted life years.

RESULTS

Over 20 years, the net discounted saving from adding fluoride to reticulated water supplies supplying populations over 500 would be NZ$1401 million, a nine times pay-off. Between 8800 and 13,700 quality-adjusted life years would be gained. While fluoridating reticulated water supplies for large communities is cost-effective, it is unlikely to be so with populations smaller than 500.

CONCLUSIONS

Community water fluoridation remains highly cost-effective for all but very small communities. The health benefits-while (on average) small per person-add up to a substantial reduction in the national disease burden across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups.

Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

A recently updated Community Guide systematic review of the effectiveness of community water fluoridation once again found evidence that it reduces dental caries. Although community water fluoridation was found to save money in a 2002 Community Guide systematic review, the conclusion was based on studies conducted before 1995. Given the update to the effectiveness review, re-examination of the benefit and cost of community water fluoridation is necessary.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Using methods developed for Community Guide economic reviews, 564 studies were identified within a search period from January 1995 to November 2013. Ten studies were included in the current review, with four covering community fluoridation benefits only and another six providing both cost and benefit information. Additionally, two of the six studies analyzed the cost effectiveness of community water fluoridation. All currencies were converted to 2013 dollars.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The analysis was conducted in 2014. The benefit-only studies used regression analysis, showing that different measures of dental costs were always lower in communities with water fluoridation. For the six cost-benefit studies, per capita annual intervention cost ranged from $0.11 to $4.92 for communities with at least 1,000 population, and per capita annual benefit ranged from $5.49 to $93.19. Benefit-cost ratios ranged from 1.12:1 to 135:1, and these ratios were positively associated with community population size.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent evidence continues to indicate that the economic benefit of community water fluoridation exceeds the intervention cost. Further, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the community population size.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Economic Evaluation Publications in Dentistry

Economic evaluation (EE) studies have been undertaken in dentistry since the late 20th century because economic data provide additional information to policy makers to develop guidelines and set future direction for oral health services. The objectives of this study were to assess the methodological quality of EEs in oral health. Electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1975 to 2013 were undertaken to identify publications that include costs and outcomes in dentistry. Relevant reference lists were also searched for additional studies. Studies were retrieved and reviewed independently for inclusion by 3 authors. Furthermore, to appraise the EE methods, 1 author applied the Drummond 10-item (13-criteria) checklist tool to each study. Of the 114 publications identified, 79 studies were considered full EE and 35 partial. Twenty-eight studies (30%) were published between the years 2011 and 2013. Sixty-four (53%) studies focused on dental caries prevention or treatment. Median appraisal scores calculated for full and partial EE studies were 11 and 9 out of 13, respectively. Quality assessment scores showed that the quality of partial EE studies published after 2000 significantly improved (P = 0.02) compared to those published before 2000. Significant quality improvement was not found in full EE studies. Common methodological limitations were identified: absence of sensitivity analysis, discounting, and insufficient information on how costs and outcomes were measured and valued. EE studies in dentistry increased over the last 40 y in both quantity and quality, but a number of publications failed to satisfy some components of standard EE research methods, such as sensitivity analysis and discounting.

Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation was initiated in the USA in 1945 and is currently practised in about 25 countries around the world; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. Given the continued interest in this topic from health professionals, policy makers and the public, it is important to update and maintain a systematic review that reflects contemporary evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries.To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 February 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2015); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 February 2015); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 February 2015); Proquest (to 19 February 2015); Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 February 2015); ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 19 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization's WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language of publication or publication status in the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For caries data, we included only prospective studies with a concurrent control that compared at least two populations - one receiving fluoridated water and the other non-fluoridated water - with outcome(s) evaluated at at least two points in time. For the assessment of fluorosis, we included any type of study design, with concurrent control, that compared populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. We included populations of all ages that received fluoridated water (naturally or artificially fluoridated) or non-fluoridated water.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used an adaptation of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies.We included the following caries indices in the analyses: decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft (deciduous dentition) and DMFT (permanent dentition)), and proportion caries free in both dentitions. For dmft and DMFT analyses we calculated the difference in mean change scores between the fluoridated and control groups. For the proportion caries free we calculated the difference in the proportion caries free between the fluoridated and control groups.For fluorosis data we calculated the log odds and presented them as probabilities for interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste.There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.

A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation

BACKGROUND

Although community water fluoridation (CWF) results in a range of potential contaminant exposures, little attention has been given to many of the possible impacts. A central argument for CWF is its cost-effectiveness. The U.S. Government states that $1 spent on CWF saves $38 in dental treatment costs.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reported cost-effectiveness of CWF.

METHODS

Methods and underlying data from the primary U.S. economic evaluation of CWF are analyzed and corrected calculations are described. Other recent economic evaluations are also examined.

RESULTS

Recent economic evaluations of CWF contain defective estimations of both costs and benefits. Incorrect handling of dental treatment costs and flawed estimates of effectiveness lead to overestimated benefits. The real-world costs to water treatment plants and communities are not reflected.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.

High resolution mapping of reticulated water fluoride in Western Australia: opportunities to improve oral health

BACKGROUND

Drinking water with an optimum fluoride concentration is a recognized effective method to reduce dental decay.

METHODS

In this study normal suppliers of drinking water in Western Australia provided map data regarding the distribution of their supplies and the locations of their test points. These data were collated into a single unified map of Western Australian water supplies and fluoride levels. It is clear that the effect of prevention in regionally isolated communities is significant as the cost of providing service is anywhere between 2 and 4 times higher than that in high density regions.

RESULTS

The current study found that although a very significant proportion of the population has access to water with fluoride concentrations that would be caries protective, most of these are large urban centre based.

CONCLUSIONS

Those with high burdens of dental disease are mostly residential in rural and remote areas where water is either not fluoridated, nor regulated, or low in fluoride. However, it is acknowledged that water fluoridation, for many reasons, is not always feasible in rural and remote communities, and preventive efforts through alternative sources of fluoride (e.g. toothpaste) should be considered, even if less effective at community level.

A model to determine the economic viability of water fluoridation

OBJECTIVES

In view of concerns expressed by South African local authorities the aim of this study was to develop a model to determine whether water fluoridation is economically viable to reduce dental caries in South Africa.

METHODS

Microsoft Excel software was used to develop a model to determine economic viability of water fluoridation for 17 water providers from all nine South African provinces. Input variables for this model relate to chemical cost, labor cost, maintenance cost of infrastructure, opportunity cost, and capital depreciation. The following output variables were calculated to evaluate the cost of water fluoridation: per capita cost per year, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit. In this model it is assumed that the introduction of community water fluoridation can reduce caries prevalence by an additional 15 percent and that the savings in cost of treatment will be equal to the average fee for a two surface restoration.

RESULTS

Water providers included in the study serve 53.5 percent of the total population of South Africa. For all providers combined chemical cost contributes 64.5 percent to the total cost, per capita cost per year was $0.36, cost-effectiveness was calculated as $11.41 and cost-benefit of the implementation of water fluoridation was 0.34.

CONCLUSIONS

This model confirmed that water fluoridation is an economically viable option to prevent dental caries in South African communities, as well as conclusions over the last 10 years that water fluoridation leads to significant cost savings and remains a cost-effective measure for reducing dental caries, even when the caries-preventive effectiveness is modest.

Cost-effectiveness of extending the coverage of water supply fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Fluoride was first added to the Australian water supply in 1953, and by 2003, 69% of Australia's population was receiving the minimum recommended dose. Extending coverage of fluoridation to all remaining communities of at least 1000 people is a key strategy of Australia's National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this strategy from an Australian health sector perspective.

METHODS

Health gains from the prevention of caries in the Australian population are modelled over the average 15-year lifespan of a treatment plant. Taking capital and on-going operational costs of fluoridation into account, as well as costs of caries treatment, we determine the dollars per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted from extending coverage of fluoridation to all large (≥ 1000 people) and small (<1000 people) communities in Australia.

RESULTS

Extending coverage of fluoridation to all communities of at least 1000 people will lead to improved population health (3700 DALYs, 95% uncertainty interval: 2200-5700 DALYs), with a dominant cost-effectiveness ratio and 100% probability of cost-savings. Extending coverage to smaller communities leads to 60% more health gains, but is not cost-effective, with a median cost-effectiveness ratio of A$92 000/DALY and only 10% probability of being under a cost-effectiveness threshold of A$50 000/DALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Extension of fluoridation coverage under the National Oral Health Plan is highly recommended, but given the substantial dental health disparities and inequalities in access to dental care that currently exist for more regional and remote communities, there may be good justification for extending coverage to include all Australians, regardless of where they live, despite less favourable cost-effectiveness.

Contemporary fluid intake and dental caries in Australian children

In Australia, caries experience of 6-year-old and 12-year-old children has increased since the mid to late 1990s. Previously, caries rates had declined, attributable to community water fluoridation. The recent caries increase has been attributed speculatively to changes in fluid intake, including increased consumption of sweet drinks and bottled waters. Increasing urbanization and globalization have altered children's diets worldwide, promoting availability and access to processed foods and sweet drinks. Studies in Australia and internationally have demonstrated significant associations between sweet drink intake and caries experience. Despite widespread fluoride availability in contemporary Australian society, the relationship between sugar consumption and caries development continues and restricting sugar intake remains key to caries prevention. Caries risk assessment should be included in treatment planning for all children; parents should be advised of their child's risk level and given information on oral health promotion. Readily-implemented caries risk assessment tools applicable to parents and clinicians are now available. Public health information should increase awareness that consuming sweet drinks can have deleterious effects on the dentition as well as the potential for promoting systemic disease. Restricting sales of sweet drinks and sweet foods and providing healthy food and drinks for purchase in schools is paramount.

Overview of methods in economic analyses of behavioral interventions to promote oral health

BACKGROUND

Broad adoption of interventions that prove effective in randomized clinical trials or comparative effectiveness research may depend to a great extent on their costs and cost-effectiveness (CE). Many studies of behavioral health interventions for oral health promotion and disease prevention lack robust economic assessments of costs and CE.

OBJECTIVE

To describe methodologies employed to assess intervention costs, potential savings, net costs, CE, and the financial sustainability of behavioral health interventions to promote oral health.

METHODS

We provide an overview of terminology and strategies for conducting economic evaluations of behavioral interventions to improve oral health based on the recommendations of the Panel of Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. To illustrate these approaches, we summarize methodologies and findings from a limited number of published studies. The strategies include methods for assessing intervention costs, potential savings, net costs, CE, and financial sustainability from various perspectives (e.g., health-care provider, health system, health payer, employer, society). Statistical methods for estimating short-term and long-term economic outcomes and for examining the sensitivity of economic outcomes to cost parameters are described.

DISCUSSION

Through the use of established protocols for evaluating costs and savings, it is possible to assess and compare intervention costs, net costs, CE, and financial sustainability. The addition of economic outcomes to outcomes reflecting effectiveness, appropriateness, acceptability, and organizational sustainability strengthens evaluations of oral health interventions and increases the potential that those found to be successful in research settings will be disseminated more broadly.