Objective: To improve oral health disparities and outcomes among US children impacted by dental caries, there is a need to understand the cost-effectiveness of a targeted, risk-based versus universal-based approach for caries prevention.
Methods: Health and economic outcomes were simulated in a cohort of 50,000 US children aged 1-18 years, comparing current practice (CP) to risk-based-prevention (RBP) and prevention-for-all (PFA) strategies using health care sector and limited societal perspectives. Prevention included biannual oral health exams and fluoride varnish application, and one-time dental sealant placement. The primary outcome is the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained when comparing each strategy to the next least costly one.
Results: For RBP compared to CP, the ICER was US$83,000/QALY from the health care sector perspective; for PFA compared to RBP the ICER was US$154,000/QALY. Using a limited societal perspective that includes caregiver time spent attending dental or medical setting visits, RBP compared to CP yielded a ratio of $119,000/QALY and PFA compared to RBP was $235,000/QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in the probability of pain from an episode of dental caries, costs for prevention and restoration, and the loss in health-related quality of life due to dental caries pain. Scenario analyses evaluating a reduced intensity of prevention services yielded lower ICERs.
Conclusion: Using a risk-based approach that identifies and targets children at increased risk for dental caries to guide the delivery of prevention services represents an economic value similar to other pediatric prevention programs.
Keywords: cavities; child health; economic evaluation; oral health; prevention.
Copyright © 2024 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.