Application of fluoride gel/varnish (FG/FV) reduces caries increments but generates costs. Avoiding restorative treatments by preventing caries might compensate for these costs. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of dentists applying FG/FV in office and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI). EVPI analyses estimate the economic value of having perfect knowledge, assisting research resource allocation. A mixed public-private-payer perspective in Germany was adopted. A population of 12-year-olds was followed over their lifetime, with caries increments modelled using wide intervals to reflect the uncertainty of caries risk. Biannual application of FV/FG until age 18 years was compared to no fluoride application. Effectiveness parameters and their uncertainty were derived from systematic reviews. The health outcome was caries increment (decayed, missing, or filled teeth; DMFT). Cost calculations were based on fee catalogs or microcosting, including costs for individual-prophylactic fluoridation and, for FG, an individualized tray, plus material costs. Microsimulations, sensitivity, and EVPI analyses were performed. On average and applied to a largely low-risk population, no application of fluoride was least costly but also least effective (EUR 230; 11 DMFT). FV was more costly and effective (EUR 357; 7 DMFT). FG was less effective than FV and also more costly when using individualized trays. FV was the best choice for payers willing to invest EUR 39 or more per avoided DMFT. This cost-effectiveness will differ in different settings/countries or if FG/FV is applied by other care professionals. The EVPI was mainly driven by the individual's caries risk, as FV/FG were significantly more cost-effective in high-risk populations than in low-risk ones. Future studies should focus on caries risk prediction.

Keywords:
Computer modeling, Fluoride, Public dental health, Topical fluorides, Varnish
1.
Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ, Blackhouse G: Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:377-401.
2.
Broadbent JM, Foster Page LA, Thomson WM, Poulton R: Permanent dentition caries through the first half of life. Br Dent J 2013;215:E12.
3.
Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS: Ten-year outcome of crowns placed within the general dental services in England and wales. J Dent 2009;37:12-24.
4.
Destatis: Bevölkerung: Deutschland. 2016. http://www.destatis.de.
5.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
6.
Ford E, Adams J, Graves N: Development of an economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of hawthorn extract as an adjunct treatment for heart failure in Australia. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001094.
7.
GKV-Spitzenverband: Official statistics January. 2013. http://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/presse/zahlen_und_grafiken/zahlen_und_grafiken.jsp#lightbox (accessed April 17, 2014).
8.
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit in Gesundheitswesen: Appraisal of recommendations by the scientific board of IQWIG regarding “methods to assess cost-effectiveness in German public health insurance”. 2009. https://www.iqwig.de/download/Wuerdigung_der_Stellungnahmen_KNB-Methodenentwurf_2.0.pdf (accessed April 17, 2014).
9.
Jordan RA, Micheelis W: Fünfte Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie. Cologne, Deutscher Ärzteverlag, 2016.
10.
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS: Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(suppl 6):2-21.
11.
Kassenzahnärtzliche Bundesvereinigung: Catalogue of fees. 2013. http://www.kzbv.de/gebuehrenverzeichnisse.334.de.html (accessed April 17, 2014.
12.
Marinho VC, Worthington HV, Walsh T, Chong LY: Fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;6:Cd002280.
13.
Marinho VC, Worthington HV, Walsh T, Clarkson JE: Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Revi 2013;7:Cd002279.
14.
Marino R, Fajardo J, Morgan M: Cost-effectiveness models for dental caries prevention programmes among Chilean schoolchildren. Community Dent Health 2012;29:302-308.
15.
Micheelis W, Schiffner U: Vierte deutsche mundgesundheits-studie (DMS IV); in Institut der Deutschen Zahnärzte (ed): IDZ Materialreihe. Köln, Deutscher Ärzteverlag, 2006, vol 31.
16.
Ney JP, van der Goes DN, Chi DL: Economic modeling of sealing primary molars using a “value of information” approach. J Dent Res 2014;93:876-881.
17.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K: Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 2008;41:1026-1046.
18.
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC: 12-year survival of composite versus amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010;89:1063-1067.
19.
Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV, Halken J, Hallonsten A-L, Höigaard R: Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in public dental health service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent 2013;41:297-306.
20.
Quinonez RB, Stearns SC, Talekar BS, Rozier RG, Downs SM: Simulating cost-effectiveness of fluoride varnish during well-child visits for medicaid-enrolled children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:164-170.
21.
Ricucci D, Russo J, Rutberg M, Burleson JA, Spangberg LS: A prospective cohort study of endodontic treatments of 1,369 root canals: results after 5 years. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:825-842.
22.
Schwendicke F, Graetz C, Stolpe M, Dorfer CE: Retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement: a cost-effectiveness comparison of different strategies. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:1090-1097.
23.
Schwendicke F, Plaumann A, Stolpe M, Dörfer CE, Graetz C: Retention costs of periodontally compromised molars in a German population. J Clin Periodont 2016, E-pub ahead of print.
24.
Schwendicke F, Stolpe M: Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups - a micro-simulation study. BMC Oral Health 2014a;14:153.
25.
Schwendicke F, Stolpe M: Direct pulp capping after a carious exposure versus root canal treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Endod 2014b;40:1764-1770.
26.
Schwendicke F, Stolpe M, Meyer-Lueckel H, Paris S, Dorfer CE: Cost-effectiveness of one- and two-step incomplete and complete excavations. J Dent Res 2013;92:880-887.
27.
Splieth CH, Flessa S: Modelling lifelong costs of caries with and without fluoride use. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:164-169.
28.
Statistisches Bundesamt: Mortality table 2009/2011. 2013. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ (accessed April 17, 2014).
29.
Torabinejad M, Corr R, Handysides R, Shabahang S: Outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment and endodontic surgery: a systematic review. J Endod 2009;35:930-937.
30.
Vermaire JH, van Loveren C, Brouwer WB, Krol M: Value for money: economic evaluation of two different caries prevention programmes compared with standard care in a randomized controlled trial. Caries Res 2014;48:244-253.
31.
Weyant RJ, Tracy SL, Anselmo TT, Beltran-Aguilar ED, Donly KJ, Frese WA, Hujoel PP, Iafolla T, Kohn W, Kumar J, Levy SM, Tinanoff N, Wright JT, Zero D, Aravamudhan K, Frantsve-Hawley J, Meyer DM: Topical fluoride for caries prevention: executive summary of the updated clinical recommendations and supporting systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:1279-1291.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.