This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Griffin, S.O. Articles by Barker, L.K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Griffin, S.O. Articles by Barker, L.K. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparing the Costs of Three Sealant Delivery Strategies

¹ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Division of Oral Health/Surveillance, Investigations and Research Branch, 4770 Buford Highway, MSF10, Chamblee, GA 30341; and
² School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205;

Correspondence: ^* corresponding author, sig1{at}cdc.gov

We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of 3 sealant delivery strategies: Seal all (SA), seal children assessed to be at risk by screening (TARGET), and seal none (SN). We assumed a nine-year analytic horizon, a 3% discount rate, and zero screening costs. Estimates for sealant costs ($27.00) and restoration costs ($73.77), annual caries increment (0.0624 surfaces), sealant failure rate (20% in yr 1 and 3% thereafter), annual amalgam failure rate (4.6%), and sensitivity (0.635) and specificity (0.795) of screening were obtained from published studies. Under baseline assumptions, TARGET dominated (cost less and reduced caries) SA and SN. If annual caries increment exceeded 0.095 surfaces, SA dominated TARGET, and if increment exceeded 0.05 surfaces, TARGET dominated SN. If sealant costs decreased to $6.00 (reported cost for school programs), TARGET dominated SN for caries increments exceeding 0.007 surfaces, and SA dominated TARGET for caries increments exceeding 0.034 surfaces.

Key Words: dental sealants • cost-effectiveness • screening • delivery of health care

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 81, No. 9, 641-645 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100913


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. F. Gooch, S. O. Griffin, S. K. Gray, W. G. Kohn, R. G. Rozier, M. Siegal, M. Fontana, D. Brunson, N. Carter, D. K. Curtis, et al. Preventing Dental Caries Through School-Based Sealant Programs: Updated Recommendations and Reviews of Evidence J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2009; 140(11): 1356 - 1365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Tianviwat, V. Chongsuvivatwong, and S. Birch Estimating Unit Costs for Dental Service Delivery in Institutional and Community-Based Settings in Southern Thailand Asia Pac J Public Health, January 1, 2009; 21(1): 84 - 93. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Beauchamp, P. W. Caufield, J. J. Crall, K. Donly, R. Feigal, B. Gooch, A. Ismail, W. Kohn, M. Siegal, and R. Simonsen Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations for the Use of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants: A Report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2008; 139(3): 257 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]