A Comparison of Dental Treatment Utilization and Costs by HMO Members Living in Fluoridated and Nonfluoridated Areas

Maupomé, Gerardo; Gullion, Christina M.; Peters, Dawn; Little, Sally Jo

doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00033.x

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Geographically, six of the studies were from the U.S. 5, 9–11, 15, 17 , with the rest from Australia 13, 14 , Canada 16 , and New Zealand 12 . Six papers 9, 11–14, 16 provided cost and benefit information, two 13, 14 of which also conducted cost-effectiveness analysis using DALY.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six papers 9, 11–14, 16 provided cost and benefit information, two 13, 14 of which also conducted cost-effectiveness analysis using DALY. The remaining four papers 5, 10, 15, 17 provided only benefit information and used regression models to analyze the change in treatment cost or dental claims with the presence of CWF.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All ten studies provided benefit information. Four 5, 10, 15, 17 of them covered benefit only, the remaining six 9, 11–14, 16 also provided estimates of intervention cost.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regression analysis was used in the four benefit-only studies 5, 10, 15, 17 (findings listed in Appendix Table 1), whose benefit was mainly composed of treatment cost averted, either as dental treatment averted or claims avoided. Although differences existed in their dependent variables and magnitudes of the estimates, all studies reached similar conclusions: the presence of CWF was related to fewer dental treatment cost/claims.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation

Tao¹,

Chattopadhyay²

2016

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: A recently updated Community Guide systematic review of the effectiveness of community water fluoridation (CWF) still found strong evidence that CWF reduced dental caries across populations. Although CWF was found to have saved money in a 2002 Community Guide review, the conclusion was based on studies before year 1995. Given the update to the effectiveness review and changes in the economic environment, re-examination of the benefit and cost of CWF is necessary. Evidence acquisition: Using methods developed for Community Guide economic reviews, 564 potentially relevant papers were identified within a search period from January 1995 to November 2013. Ten studies were included in the current review, with four covering CWF benefits only and another six providing both cost and benefit information. Additionally, two of the six studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of CWF. The economic review was conducted in 2014. Evidence synthesis: For all four benefit–only studies, which used regression analysis, dental costs in various forms were lower in communities with water fluoridation. For the remaining six studies, per capita annual intervention cost ranged from $0.11 to $4.89 in 2013 U.S dollars. Variation in cost was caused mainly by community population size, with decreasing per capita cost associated with increasing community population. Per capita annual benefit in the six studies ranged from $5.45 to $139.78. Variation in benefit was mainly due to the numbers and types of benefit components included in the benefit calculation. 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.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All ten studies provided benefit information. Four 5, 10, 15, 17 of them covered benefit only, the remaining six 9, 11–14, 16 also provided estimates of intervention cost.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation

Tao¹,

Chattopadhyay²

2016

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is growing evidence worldwide that water fluoridation can reduce coronal and root caries, tooth loss and the cost of dental care throughout adulthood, although quantification of the effect is hampered by the use of different methodologies and outcomes (2,14,15,46,47).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water fluoridation, dentition status and bone health of older people in Ireland

O’Sullivan

O’Connell

2014

Comm Dent Oral Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Objective: To examine some of the potential benefits and risks of water fluoridation for older adults. Methods: This study used 'The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing', to access a nationally representative sample of 4977 people aged 50 and older. The sample was used to estimate associations between the percentage of households in a respondent's local area with a currently fluoridated water supply and the probability of two binary outcomes: the respondent having all their own teeth and having normal bone density. Past exposure of individuals to fluoridated water was not assessed; the prevalence of fluoridated water in local supplies was obtained from the 2006 Census of Ireland. The Census data indicated that there was considerable variation in the proportion of households with fluoridated water supplies, especially in rural areas. Bone mineral density was estimated from a heel ultrasound of each respondent, and their number of teeth was self-reported. A range of individual variables, such as educational attainment, housing wealth, age and health behaviours, was controlled for. Results: It was found that the greater the percentage of households with a fluoridated water supply in an area, the higher the probability that respondents had all their own teeth. There was no significant relationship between the proportion of households with a fluoridated water supply in an area and bone health. Conclusion: This study suggests that water fluoridation provides a net health gain for older Irish adults, though the effects of fluoridation warrant further investigation.

show abstract