Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25503613›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research2015

Detecting and treating occlusal caries lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

F Schwendicke, M Stolpe, H Meyer-Lueckel, S Paris

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Clinical decision-making in pulp therapy of primary teeth among Tunisian dental practitioners: a cross-sectional study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F SchwendickeDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany falk.schwendicke@charite.de.
M StolpeKiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany.
H Meyer-LueckelDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
S ParisDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEKiel Institute for the World Economy · DERWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The health gains and costs resulting from using different caries detection strategies might not only depend on the accuracy of the used method but also the treatment emanating from its use in different populations. We compared combinations of visual-tactile, radiographic, or laser-fluorescence-based detection methods with 1 of 3 treatments (non-, micro-, and invasive treatment) initiated at different cutoffs (treating all or only dentinal lesions) in populations with low or high caries prevalence. A Markov model was constructed to follow an occlusal surface in a permanent molar in an initially 12-y-old male German patient over his lifetime. Prevalence data and transition probabilities were extracted from the literature, while validity parameters of different methods were synthesized or obtained from systematic reviews. Microsimulations were performed to analyze the model, assuming a German health care setting and a mixed public-private payer perspective. Radiographic and fluorescence-based methods led to more overtreatments, especially in populations with low prevalence. For the latter, combining visual-tactile or radiographic detection with microinvasive treatment retained teeth longest (mean 66 y) at lowest costs (329 and 332 Euro, respectively), while combining radiographic or fluorescence-based detections with invasive treatment was the least cost-effective (<60 y, >700 Euro). In populations with high prevalence, combining radiographic detection with microinvasive treatment was most cost-effective (63 y, 528 Euro), while sensitive detection methods combined with invasive treatments were again the least cost-effective (<59 y, >690 Euro). The suitability of detection methods differed significantly between populations, and the cost-effectiveness was greatly influenced by the treatment initiated after lesion detection. The accuracy of a detection method relative to a "gold standard" did not automatically convey into better health or reduced costs. Detection methods should be evaluated not only against their criterion validity but also the long-term effects resulting from their use in different populations.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicCariostatic AgentsChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDental CariesDental Caries SusceptibilityDental EnamelDental Restoration, PermanentDentinDisease ProgressionEuropeFluorescenceHealth Care CostsHumansLasersLife TablesCariostatic AgentsPit and Fissure Sealantsdental cariesfluorescencehealth economicsMarkov processprevalenceradiography

Identifiers

PMID25503613
PMCPMC4438735
OpenAlexW2118669063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.