ArticleBMC oral health2014
Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups - a micro-simulation study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02754466 (Oral Health and Its Relation to Growth, Development and Well-being of Schoolchildren Before and After Restorative Treatments), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Oral Health and Its Relation to Growth, Development and Well-being of Schoolchildren Before and After Restorative Treatments
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of decision analytic modeling techniques for the economic evaluation of dental caries interventions.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Three-Year Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Selective Caries Removal and Full Pulpotomy for Extensive Caries: An Exploratory Randomised Controlled Trial.International endodontic journal · 2026Trial
- Selective vs stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in primary molars: 24 months follow-up from a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Trial
- Selective carious tissue removal using subjective criteria or polymer bur: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SelecCT).BMJ open · 2018Trial
- Evaluating the Managerial Feasibility of an AI-Based Tooth-Percussion Signal Screening Concept for Dental Caries: An In Silico Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Economic analysis of the different endodontic instrumentation techniques used in the Unified Health System.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- The impact of psychological attachment on the relationship between periodontal health and dental fear in patients with versus without psoriasis: a questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Restorative intervention thresholds and treatment decisions of general dental practitioners in London.British dental journal · 2019Article
- Article
- Bacterial reduction in sealed caries lesions is strain- and material-specific.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Association between untreated carious lesions and asthma in adults at Rabat University Hospital, Morocco: a cross sectional study.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Managing caries: the need to close the gap between the evidence base and current practice.British dental journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhilst being the most prevalent disease worldwide, dental caries is increasingly concentrated in high-risk populations. New caries treatments should therefore be evaluated not only in terms of their cost-effectiveness in individuals, but also their effects on the distribution of costs and benefits across different populations. To treat deep caries, there are currently three strategies: selective (one-step incomplete), stepwise (two-step incomplete) and complete excavation. Building on prior research that found selective excavation generally cost-effective, we compared the costs-effectiveness of different excavations in low- and high-risk patients, hypothesizing that selective excavation had greater cost-effectiveness-advantages in patients with high compared with low risk.
methodsAn average tooth-level Markov-model was constructed following the posterior teeth in an initially 18-year old male individual, either with low or high risk, over his lifetime. Risk was assumed to be predicted by several parameters (oral hygiene, social position, dental service utilization), with evidence-based transition probabilities or hazard functions being adjusted for different risk status where applicable. Total lifetime treatment costs were estimated for German healthcare, with both mixed public-private and only private out-of-pocket costs being calculated. For cost-effectiveness-analysis, micro-simulations were performed and joint parameter uncertainty introduced by random sampling of probabilities. Cohort analyses were used for assessing the underlying reasons for potential differences between strategies and populations.
resultsSelective excavation was more effective and less costly than both alternatives regardless of an individual's risk. All three strategies were less effective and more costly in patients with high compared with low risk, whilst the differences between risk groups were smallest for selective excavation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness-advantages of selective excavation were more pronounced in high-risk groups, who also benefitted the most from reduced private out-of-pocket treatment costs.
conclusionsWhilst caries excavation does not tackle the underlying sources for both the development of caries lesions and the potential differences of individuals' risk status, selective excavation seems most suitable to treat deep lesions, especially in patients with high risk, who over-proportionally benefit from the resulting health-gains and cost-savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.