ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Applying Fluoride Varnish to Preschoolers in a Brazilian Scenario: An Economic Modelling Study.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundInternational economic evaluations have not found convincing evidence that the application of fluoride varnish (FV) in preschool children is a cost-effective anti-caries measure, and there is a lack of economic evaluations of FV in the Brazilian context.
aimThis study evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of standard care plus FV for Brazilian preschoolers in the general population, comparing it to standard care in terms of prevention of cavitated caries lesions and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) outcomes.
methodsMarkov models were used, with a 4-year time horizon and 6-month cycles. Transition probabilities were obtained from a national epidemiological survey and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The effectiveness of FV was derived from a systematic review of RCTs. Costs (in Brazilian reais) were sourced from the 2022 National Agency for Supplemental Health dental procedures list. A discount rate of 5% was applied. CE analyses, Markov simulations (MS), and sensitivity analyses (SA) were conducted. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) used a 95% confidence interval for each variable. For probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), beta distribution curves were used for probabilities, gamma for costs, and lognormal for effectiveness.
resultsStandard care plus FV showed an increase in effectiveness (0.01894 and 0.00018 for avoided caries and DALY, respectively) compared to standard care, with an additional cost of R$131.27 per child in the 4-year period. The ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) was calculated at R$6929.09 per cavitated caries lesion prevented and R$727604.84 per DALY avoided. MS revealed little difference in the percentage of individuals in each health state at the end of the simulations. FV prevented cavities in 4 out of every 100 children over a 4-year period, at an average annual cost of R$33 per child (assuming each child who developed cavitated caries lesions had only one). DSA indicated that FV effectiveness was the parameter with the highest potential to influence the ICER. PSA suggested high CE thresholds, from which FV would be considered cost-effective: R$7000 for caries and R$730000 for DALY.
conclusionThe total cost of care was lower in the group that invested less in prevention (without FV) compared to the group that invested more (with FV). While it is often said that "more prevention is always better," economic evaluations remind us that not all preventive strategies provide good value for money.
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.