Objective: Tooth decay has been substantially reduced in New Zealand, and t
he difference in caries rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas
has narrowed. We investigated whether it is cost-effective to fluoridate w
ater supplies that are now non-fluoridated.
Methods: The net cost of fluoridation was based on the cost of fluoridating
a water supply minus the averted costs of treating decay. A range of popul
ation sizes was considered. The main analysis was conducted from a societal
perspective, using a real discount rate of 5%. Fluoridation was assumed to
occur continuously between the years 2000 and 2030. Other assumptions were
a Maori population proportion of 15%, no new decay after age 34, and no fu
rther dental cost savings after age 45. Information on averted decay in 4 t
o 12 year old New Zealand children (29,000 receiving fluoridated water and
47,000 receiving nonfluoridated water) was available; information on averte
d decay in adults was obtained from a study in the United States. Sensitivi
ty analyses investigated the effects of varying the Maori population propor
tion, the discount rate, and the number of fluoride injection sites.
Results: Fluoridation was cost-saving (dental cost savings exceeded fluorid
ation costs) for communities above about a thousand people. The true break-
even community size may be lower. For smaller communities, fluoridation may
be considered cost-effective depending on the non-monetised value assigned
to an averted decayed surface.
Conclusions and implications: Fluoridation remains very cost-effective, and
is particularly so for communities with high proportions of children, Maor
i, or people of low socio-economic status.