Steven,
Thank you for your link to studies.  Seven are listed at that site.  After 72 years of fluoridation, I would agree those are the best which report benefit.  Lets briefly look closer.
1.  See Ko above who lists many claims for the estimates of assumptions, but that is not "measured" evidence, guessing.
2. Small medicaid study, not published or peer reviewed.
3. A medicaid study, not of the public at large, numerous limitations.  
4."Researchers estimated "   I'm looking for measured evidence rather than guessing estimates.
5. CDC, low income, not peer reviewed.
6. Survey, not peer reviewed or published. I've dealt with WSBOH and WSDOH.  They told me they do not review science on fluoridation.
7.   "1995 estimate"

I have grave concern for fluoridation when after 72 years, that is the best evidence of cost effectiveness we have.  
Why are not Maupome and Ko included in that list?  Bias? Evidence is cooked? Marketing?  Certainly not objective science.