Efficacy and cost analysis of two fluoride varnishes in community-based interventions for early childhood caries

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2026.2025174

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective A community intervention mo-del was used to investigate the preventive effects and cost-effectiveness of I-ReHealth^® and Duraphat^® in early childhood caries. Methods Children from Yizhou District, Hechi City, were enrolled and randomly assigned into two groups: the I-ReHealth^® group and the Duraphat^® group. Each group received topical fluoride varnish applications and dental health education every 6 months. After 1.5 years, the incidence of caries and associated costs were compared between the two groups before and after the intervention. Cost minimization analysis was employed to evaluate economic efficiency, and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of variations in key parameters on result stability and to quantify the probabilistic differences in cost benefits between the two fluoride varnishes under equivalent caries-preventive effects. Results Prior to the intervention, we found no statistically significant differences in caries prevalence or mean dmft scores between the two groups (P>0.05). After 1.5 years of treatment, both groups still showed no statistically significant differences in caries prevalence (P>0.05), mean dmft scores (P>0.05), caries incidence rate (P>0.05), or increment in mean dmft (P>0.05). The one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference in mean dmft increment was below the non-inferiority threshold, confirming non-inferiority (P<0.025). Cost minimization analysis revealed lower total costs in the I-ReHealth^® group (¥25 411.44) than in the Duraphat^® group (¥26 692.98). One-way sensitivity analysis identified material price as the most influential parameter affecting total costs. Monte Carlo simulation with 1 000 iterations demonstrated a 73.1% probability that the I-ReHealth^® group will yield cost savings compared with the Duraphat^® group. Conclusion I-ReHealth^® is non-inferior to Duraphat® in caries-preventive efficacy but superior in cost-effectiveness in reducing patient expenses.

Key words: early childhood caries, fluoride varnish, community-based intervention, cost minimization analysis

CLC Number:

R780.1

Yang Chaoqing, Yu Jinmei, Zhang Yishan, Liu Fanghong, Pang Qiuling, Xie Yulu, Ran Lingshan, Qiu Rongmin. Efficacy and cost analysis of two fluoride varnishes in community-based interventions for early childhood caries[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2026, 44(1): 129-136.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig 1

Tab 1

Tab 2

Tab 3

Tab 4

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

References 17

[1]	Cheng L, Zhang L, Yue L, et al. Expert consensus on dental caries management[J]. Int J Oral Sci, 2022, 14(1): 17.
[2]	Borg-Bartolo R, Roccuzzo A, Molinero-Mourelle P, et al. Global prevalence of edentulism and dental caries in middle-aged and elderly persons: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. J Dent, 2022, 127: 104335.
[3]	Giacaman RA, Fernández CE, Muñoz-Sandoval C, et al. Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable and behavioral disease: management implications[J]. Front Oral Health, 2022, 3: 764479.
[4]	王兴. 第四次全国口腔健康流行病学调查报告[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018: 45-50.
	Wang X. The fourth national oral health epidemiological survey report[M]. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2018: 45-50.
[5]	Baik A, Alamoudi N, El-Housseiny A, et al. Fluoride varnishes for preventing occlusal dental caries: a review[J]. Dent J, 2021, 9(6): 64.
[6]	Clark MB, Keels MA, Slayton RL, et al. Fluoride use in caries prevention in the primary care setting[J]. Pediatrics, 2020, 146(6): e2020034637.
[7]	敖川北, 李昆仑, 邹亚姝, 等. 欧卡芙氟保护漆A型与多乐氟氟化钠护齿剂预防学龄前儿童龋病的效果对比[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2021, 37(3): 167-169.
	Ao CB, Li KL, Zou YS, et al. Comparison of the effects of Okafu fluoride varnish A and Dole fluoride sodium fluoride on the prevention of dental caries in preschool children[J]. J Clin Stomatol, 2021, 37(3): 167-169.
[8]	Manchanda S, Liu P, Sardana D, et al. Randomized clinical trial to compare three fluoride varnishes in preventing early childhood caries[J]. J Dent, 2024, 147: 105141.
[9]	仇丽霞. 医学统计学[M]. 北京: 中国协和医科大学出版社, 2021.
	Qiu LX. Medical statistics[M]. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press, 2021.
[10]	陈永洁. 基于风险评估的玉林市玉州区低龄儿童龋涂氟效果及成本分析[D]. 南宁: 广西医科大学, 2023.
	Chen YJ. Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost analysis of fluoridizing for early childhood caries based on risk assessment in Yuzhou district, Yulin city[D]. Nanning: Guangxi Medical University, 2023.
[11]	Chikte U, Pontes CC, Karangwa I, et al. Dental caries in a south African adult population: findings from the cape town vascular and metabolic health study[J]. Int Dent J, 2020, 70(3): 176-182.
[12]	刘国恩. 中国药物经济学评价指南(2020)[M]. 北京: 中国市场出版社, 2020: 27.
	Liu GE. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations (2020)[M]. Beijing: China Market Press, 2020: 27.
[13]	Sun KX, Cui B, Cao SS, et al. A Meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Pharmacol Res Perspect, 2021, 9(3): e00774.
[14]	Nitta Y, Nishimura M, Shibahara H, et al. A Meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of cryoballoon ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation[J]. J Arrhythmia, 2024, 40(4): 802-814.
[15]	Duffin S, Duffin M, Grootveld M. Revisiting fluoride in the twenty-first century: safety and efficacy considerations[J]. Front Oral Health, 2022, 3: 873157.
[16]	汤罗艳. 采用机器学习算法验证PSC-MCAT预测桂林市临桂区低龄儿童龋病风险的效果[D]. 南宁: 广西医科大学, 2024.
	Tang LY. Effect of machine learning algorithm in verif-ying PSC-MCAT for predicting early childhood caries risk in Lingui district, Guilin city[D]. Nanning: Guangxi Medical University, 2024.
[17]	张艺山. 广西学龄儿童龋病风险评估工具的开发与验证[D]. 南宁: 广西医科大学, 2024.
	Zhang YS. Development and validation of a caries risk assessment tool for school-age children in Guangxi[D]. Nanning: Guangxi Medical University, 2024.

组别	参数	定义
爱睿康组/多乐氟组	F	人力成本单价
	H	一次性消耗材料单价
	B	办公费
	J	交通费
	Y	餐饮费
	Z	贴现率
	S	非一次性设备损耗
	X	培训费
爱睿康组	A	爱睿康材料单价
	P1	爱睿康组龋齿发生率
多乐氟组	D	多乐氟材料单价
	P2	多乐氟组龋齿发生率

组别	样本	患龋率	龋均	可视菌斑指数>20%
爱睿康组	306	61.8%	3.41±4.25	56.2%
多乐氟组	312	60.6%	3.52±4.36	54.5%
合计	618	61.2%	3.47±4.31	55.3%
P值		0.762	0.864	0.667

组别	患龋率/（n/%）	龋均	龋病发病率/（n/%）	新增龋均	△dmft
爱睿康组	218/71.2%	4.73±4.83	148/48.4%	1.33±1.86	407
多乐氟组	223/71.5%	4.69±4.89	155/49.7%	1.17±1.60	364
合计	441/71.4%	4.71±4.86	303/49.0%	1.25±1.73	771
P值	0.949	0.854	0.744	0.680

组别	样本	△dmft	龋病发病率	新增龋均
P值			0.744	0.680
爱睿康组	312	415	151（48.4%）	1.33±1.86
多乐氟组	312	364	155（49.7%）	1.17±1.60