Effect of fluoridated water on invasive NHS dental treatments for adults: the LOTUS retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation.

Background: Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults. Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design. Design: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data. Setting: National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services. Participants: Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280). Intervention and comparison: Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores. Outcome measures: Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Data sources: National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data. Primary outcome: Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of -0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI -0.185 to -0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful. Secondary outcomes: Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of -0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI -0.229 to -0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010-20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010-20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI -£23.09 to -£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices). Limitations: Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes. Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. Future work: National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Fluoride is a natural mineral that prevents tooth decay. It is added to some drinking water and toothpastes to improve dental health. Water with fluoride added is known as 'optimally fluoridated'. Most research on water fluoridation was carried out before fluoride was added to toothpastes in the 1970s and only included children. We wanted to know if water fluoridation still produced large reductions in tooth decay, now that decay levels are much lower because of fluoride in toothpaste. We also wanted to look at its effect on adults and teenagers. Dental patients we spoke to told us they worried about needing treatment with the 'drill', or 'injection', losing their teeth and paying for their dental care. To see if water fluoridation helped with these concerns, we compared the National Health Service dental records of 6.4 million adults and teenagers who received optimally fluoridated or non-optimally fluoridated water in England between 2010 and 2020. We found water fluoridation made a very small difference to each person. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of NHS fillings and extractions was 3% lower per person for those who received optimally fluoridated water. We found no difference in the number of teeth lost per person and no strong sign that fluoridation reduced differences in dental health between rich and poor areas. Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of optimal water fluoridation was £10.30 per person (not including setup costs). National Health Service dental patients who received optimally fluoridated water cost the National Health Service £22.26 (5.5%) less and paid £7.64 (2%) less per person in National Health Service dental charges over the 10 years. The benefits we found are much smaller than in the past, when toothpastes did not contain fluoride. The cost to set up a new water fluoridation programme can be high. Communities may need to consider if these smaller benefits would still outweigh the costs.

A quality appraisal of economic evaluations of community water fluoridation: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.

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.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Primary Caries Prevention in 2- to 5-Year-Old Preschool Children.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and summarize evidence on economic evaluations (EEs) of primary caries prevention in preschool children aged 2 to 5 years and to evaluate the reporting quality of full EE studies using a quality assessment tool. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. Full and partial EEs were included. The reporting quality of full EE studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: A total of 808 studies were identified, and 39 were included in the review. Most papers were published between 2000 and 2017 and originated in the United States and the United Kingdom. The most common type of intervention investigated was a complex multicomponent intervention, followed by water fluoridation. Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were the most frequently used types of EE. One study employed cost-utility analysis. The proportion of full EEs increased over time. The parameters not reported well included study perspective, baseline year, sensitivity analysis, and discount rate. The CHEERS items that were most often unmet were characterizing uncertainty, study perspective, study parameters, and estimating resources and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Within the past 2 decades, there has been an increase in the number of EEs of caries prevention interventions in preschool children. There was inconsistency in how EEs were conducted and reported. Lack of preference-based health-related quality-of-life measure utilization in the field was identified. The use of appropriate study methodologies and greater attention to recommended EE design are required to further improve quality.

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.

Recomendação nº 046, de 11 de outubro de 2018: recomenda ao Ministério da Saúde que realize a alocação de créditos financeiros suplementares ao Programa Anual de Saúde (PAS) 2018, de modo, a garantir o cumprimento das metas das ações e serviços de saúde bucal previstas e não executadas do PAS 2017, no caso, as ações relativas à ampliação e qualificação da atenção especializada em saúde bucal, uma das linhas estratégicas da PNSB, por meio da implantação adicional (além da prevista para este ano) de 52 (cinquenta e dois) Centros de Especialidades Odontológicas (CEO) e 196 (cento e noventa e seis) Laboratórios Regionais de Prótese Dentária (LRPD) nos estados e municípios, bem como, na qualificação do acompanhamento técnico e na definição dos critérios de repasses federais / Recommendation No. 046, of October 11, 2018: recommends to the Ministry of Health to allocate supplementary financial credits to the Annual Health Program (PAS) 2018, in order to ensure compliance with the goals of oral health actions and services foreseen and not executed by PAS 2017, in this case, the actions related to the expansion and qualification of specialized oral health care

Recomenda ao Ministério da Saúde que realize a alocação de créditos financeiros suplementares ao Programa Anual de Saúde (PAS) 2018, de modo, a garantir o cumprimento das metas das ações e serviços de saúde bucal previstas e não executadas do PAS 2017, no caso, as ações relativas à ampliação e qualificação da atenção especializada em saúde bucal, uma das linhas estratégicas da PNSB, por meio da implantação adicional (além da prevista para este ano) de 52 (cinquenta e dois) Centros de Especialidades Odontológicas (CEO) e 196 (cento e noventa e seis) Laboratórios Regionais de Prótese Dentária (LRPD) nos estados e municípios, bem como, na qualificação do acompanhamento técnico e na definição dos critérios de repasses federais; que cumpra, de forma integral, ou seja, em 100%, a execução financeira prevista na PAS 2018 em ações e serviços de saúde bucal; que cumpra, de forma integral, as metas do Plano Nacional de Saúde 2016-2019 para as ações de saúde bucal e estabeleça, no Plano Nacional de Saúde 2020-2023, metas anuais de ampliação do número de Equipes de Saúde Bucal (ESB) implantadas na Atenção Básica de modo a garantir o completo equilíbrio na proporção entre o número destas e das Equipes de Saúde da Família (ESF) e a ampliação da cobertura das ações de saúde bucal da população brasileira; que execute, de forma integral, os R$ 344 milhões em ações e serviços de saúde bucal anunciados pelo governo em 2017 por meio da adição de R$ 152 milhões à título de crédito suplementar à PAS 2018; que a área técnica do Ministério da Saúde apresente ao CNS e torne público relatório pormenorizado dos gastos relativos à fluoretação das águas de consumo; e que empenhe, de forma imediata, os recursos orçamentários e financeiros previstos no orçamento de 2018 relativos a execução do Levantamento Epidemiológico de Saúde Bucal SB 2020. Aos Conselhos Estaduais e Municipais de Saúde: Que sejam convocadas, nestas instâncias, representações das Coordenações Estaduais de Saúde Bucal e das Comissões Intersetoriais Bipartites (CIB) e se paute a necessidade de construção de mecanismos de acompanhamento, nos estados e municípios, do processo de credenciamento e implantação dos Centros Especializados de Odontologia e Laboratórios Regionais de Prótese Dentária.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a school-based dental caries prevention program using fluoridated milk in Bangkok, Thailand.

BACKGROUND: This study modelled the cost-effectiveness, from a societal perspective, of a program that used fluoridated milk to prevent dental caries in children who were 6 years old at the beginning of the program, versus non-intervention, after 6 years. METHODS: After 6 years, children in the milk-fluoridation program had a significant (34%) reduction in dental caries experience compared to those in the comparison community (i.e., received school milk without added fluoride) (DMFS: 1.06 vs. 1.60). RESULTS: This improvement was achieved with an investment of Thailand Baht (THB) 5,345,048 over 6 years (or THB 11.88 per child, per year) (1 US$ = THB(2011) 30.0). When comparing the costs of the operation of the program and dental treatment in the test community with those of the comparison community, the program resulted in a net societal savings of THB 8,177,179 (range 18,597,122 to THB 7,920,711) after 6 years. This investment would result in 40,500 DMFS avoided in a community with a childhood population of 75,000 [DMFS avoided: 75,000 x (- 0.54)]. CONCLUSIONS: While the analysis has inherent limitations due to its dependence on a range of assumptions, the results suggest that, from a societal perspective, when compared with the non-intervention group, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration intervention appeared to be a more cost-efficient option than current standard oral health care.

Management of dental caries among children: a look at the cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Dental caries is the most prevalent non-communicative disease worldwide. Although the etiological factors are well known for years, reducing the number of decayed and missing teeth in children still remains as a barrier. Preventive and curative options are numerous but little is known about their economical advantages. Selecting the intervention that offers the best balance of effectiveness and financial resources becomes crucial in the current situation of budget restrictions worldwide. AREAS COVERED: This expert review summarizes available evidence on cost-effectiveness analyses of preventive and curative measures to manage dental caries in children. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Preventive measures have been more extensively studied than dental caries treatment. Only water fluoridation and tooth brushing are well-established as cost-effective preventive approaches. Despite the increasing number of cost analysis treatment studies in the literature, most of them focus on the cost description, with no correlation to the intervention effectiveness. There is a current need of well-designed and well-reported cost-effectiveness regarding dental caries management.

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.

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 Public Health Reach of High Fluoride Vehicles: Examples of Innovative Approaches.

Fluorides and sealants have been shown to reduce caries in populations, making fluoride interventions a large part of the dental public health effort. Although public health programs have traditionally focused on fluoride vehicles delivering less than 1,000 ppm of fluoride, more recent efforts have shifted toward the use of high fluoride vehicles such as varnishes and prescription toothpastes. In the USA, states are developing innovative strategies to increase access to dental services by using primary care medical providers to deliver early preventive services as part of well-child care visits. Currently, Medicaid programs in 43 states reimburse medical providers for preventive services including varnish application. Still, there is uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. In many resource-strained environments, with shortages of dental health care providers, lack of fluoridated water and lower dental awareness, it is necessary to develop sustainable programs utilizing already established programs, like primary school education, where caries prevention may be set as a priority. Dental caries among the elderly is an ongoing complex problem. The 5,000-ppm F toothpaste may be a reasonable approach for developing public health programs where root caries control is the main concern. Fluoride varnish and high concentration fluoride toothpaste are attractive because they can easily be incorporated into well-child visits and community-based geriatric programs. Additional research on the effectiveness and costs associated with population-based programs of this nature for high risk groups is needed, especially in areas where a community-based fluoride delivery program is not available.

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.

Reducing early childhood caries in a Medicaid population: a systems model analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite early childhood caries (ECC) being largely preventable, its repair accounts for a disproportionate share of Medicaid expenditures. In this study, the authors model disease reductions and cost savings from ECC management alternatives. METHODS: The authors apply system dynamics modeling to the New York State Medicaid population of young children to compare potential outcomes of 9 preventive interventions (water fluoridation, fluoride varnish, fluoride toothpaste, medical screening and fluoride varnish application, bacterial transmission reduction, motivational interviewing, dental prevention visits, secondary prevention, and combinations) and the effect of defluoridating New York City. RESULTS: Model simulations help project 10-year disease reductions and net savings from water fluoridation, motivational interviewing, and fluoride toothpaste. Interventions requiring health professionals cost more than they save. Interventions that target children at high risk, begin early, and combine multiple strategies hold greatest potential. Defluoridating New York City would increase disease and costs dramatically. CONCLUSIONS: The variety of population-level and individual-level interventions available to control ECC differ substantially in their capacity to improve children's oral health and reduce state Medicaid expenditures. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using Medicaid and health department dollars to deliver ECC preventive and management interventions holds strong promise to improve children's oral health while reducing state dental expenditures in Medicaid.

A cost effectiveness analysis of community water fluoridation in New Zealand.

AIM: The aim of the study was to use recent data to determine whether Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) remains a cost effective public health intervention in New Zealand, given a reduction in dental caries in all communities over time. METHOD: Local authorities that fluoridated their water supplies were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding fixed and variable costs incurred from CWF. Cost savings were calculated using data from the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey. The cost effectiveness of CWF in conjunction with treatment per dmft/DMFT averted was compared to an alternative of treatment alone. Calculations were made for communities with populations of less than 5,000, 5,000 to 10,000, 10,001 to 50,000 and greater than 50,000. RESULTS: CWF was cost effective in all communities at base case. CWF remained cost effective for communities over 5,000 under all scenarios when sensitivity analysis was conducted. For communities under 5,000 the there was a positive net cost for CWF under certain scenarios. CONCLUSION: In this study, CWF was a cost effective public health intervention in New Zealand. For smaller communities cost effectiveness would be more dependent upon the population risk profile of the community.

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.