HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar 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.

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;

* 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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]