ArticleBMC oral health2017
The costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ.
Article in BMC oral health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of dental fluorosis on the oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Does Tooth Loss Lead to School Bullying? Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.JDR clinical and translational research · 2026Article
- Upstream Interventions to Promote Oral Health and Reduce Oral Health Inequalities: A Scoping Review.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Childhood caries experience in two Aotearoa New Zealand birth cohorts: implications for research, policy and practice.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2022Article
- Economic evaluations in water-fluoridation: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2020Article
- Effects of Community Water Fluoridation on Dental Caries Disparities in Adolescents.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing 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.
methodsBased 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.
resultsOver 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.
conclusionsCommunity 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.