R Mariño1, J Fajardo, M Morgan. 1. Oral Health Cooperative Research Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. rmarino@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
AIM: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of seven dental caries prevention programmes among schoolchildren in Chile: three community-based programmes: water-fluoridation, salt-fluoridation and dental sealants; and four school-based programmes: milk-fluoridation; fluoridated mouthrinses (FMR); APF-Gel, and supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste. METHODS: Standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were used. The costs associated with implementing and operating each programme, using a societal perspective, were identified and estimated. The comparator was non-intervention. Health outcomes were measured as dental caries averted over a 6-year period. Costs were estimated as direct treatment costs, programmes costs and costs of productivity losses as a result of each dental caries prevention programme. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each programme. Sensitivity analyses were conducted over key parameters. RESULTS: Primary cost-effectiveness analysis (discounted) indicated that four programmes showed net social savings by the DMFT averted. These savings encompassed a range of values per diseased tooth averted; US$16.21 (salt-fluoridation), US$14.89 (community water fluoridation); US$14.78 (milk fluoridation); and US$8.63 (FMR). Individual programmes using an APF-Gel application, dental sealants, and supervised tooth brushing using fluoridated toothpaste, represent costs for the society per diseased tooth averted of US$21.30, US$11.56 and US$8.55, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on cost required to prevent one carious tooth among schoolchildren, salt fluoridation was the most cost-effective, with APF-Gel ranking as least cost-effective. Findings confirm that most community/school-based dental caries interventions are cost-effective uses of society's financial resources. The models used are conservative and likely to underestimate the real benefits of each intervention.
AIM: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of seven dental caries prevention programmes among schoolchildren in Chile: three community-based programmes: water-fluoridation, salt-fluoridation and dental sealants; and four school-based programmes: milk-fluoridation; fluoridated mouthrinses (FMR); APF-Gel, and supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste. METHODS: Standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were used. The costs associated with implementing and operating each programme, using a societal perspective, were identified and estimated. The comparator was non-intervention. Health outcomes were measured as dental caries averted over a 6-year period. Costs were estimated as direct treatment costs, programmes costs and costs of productivity losses as a result of each dental caries prevention programme. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each programme. Sensitivity analyses were conducted over key parameters. RESULTS: Primary cost-effectiveness analysis (discounted) indicated that four programmes showed net social savings by the DMFT averted. These savings encompassed a range of values per diseased tooth averted; US$16.21 (salt-fluoridation), US$14.89 (community water fluoridation); US$14.78 (milk fluoridation); and US$8.63 (FMR). Individual programmes using an APF-Gel application, dental sealants, and supervised tooth brushing using fluoridated toothpaste, represent costs for the society per diseased tooth averted of US$21.30, US$11.56 and US$8.55, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on cost required to prevent one carious tooth among schoolchildren, salt fluoridation was the most cost-effective, with APF-Gel ranking as least cost-effective. Findings confirm that most community/school-based dental caries interventions are cost-effective uses of society's financial resources. The models used are conservative and likely to underestimate the real benefits of each intervention.
Authors: Susan Griffin; Shillpa Naavaal; Christina Scherrer; Paul M Griffin; Kate Harris; Sajal Chattopadhyay Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Susan O Griffin; Shillpa Naavaal; Christina Scherrer; Mona Patel; Sajal Chattopadhyay Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: H J Rogers; H D Rodd; J H Vermaire; K Stevens; R Knapp; S El Yousfi; Z Marshman Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi; Jacob Njideka Nwafor; Afeez Abolarinwa Salami; Eyinade Adeduntan Egbedina; Lawrence Achilles Nnyanzi; Temitope Oluwabukola Ojo; Ralph M Duckworth; Fatemeh Vida Zohoori Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Yulia Anopa; Alex D McMahon; David I Conway; Graham E Ball; Emma McIntosh; Lorna M D Macpherson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240