ArticleBritish dental journal2015
Cost effectiveness modelling of a 'watchful monitoring strategy' for impacted third molars vs prophylactic removal under GA: an Australian perspective.
Article in British dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Deep learning-assisted creation of a large-scale cone beam computed tomography dataset for the segmentation of impacted mandibular third molar.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Retention of Asymptomatic Impacted Third Molars: Effects on Alveolar Bone at the Distal Surface of Second Molars over Time.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Third Molar Surgery on Sleep Health Parameters of Young Adults: An Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
- The impact of Anatomic Features of Asymptomatic Third Molars on the Pathologies of Adjacent Second Molars: A Cross-sectional Analysis.International dental journal · 2023Article
- What do we know about uncommon complications associated with third molar extractions? A scoping review of case reports and case series.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2023Article
- To prophylactically extract or not to extract partially erupted mesio-angularly impacted lower third molars?British dental journal · 2021Article
- The Contemporary American Drug Overdose Epidemic in International Perspective.Population and development review · 2019Article
- Third molor extractions among Australian adults: findings from the 2013 National Dental Telephone Interview Survey.International dental journal · 2018Article
- Socioeconomic disadvantage and oral-health-related hospital admissions: a 10-year analysis.BDJ open · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a national level cost model of both the direct and indirect costs of hospitalisations for impacted teeth in Australia. This model will then be used to compare a watchful monitoring strategy for impacted third molars versus prophylactic removal under GA, and calculate possible cost savings in the scenario where Australia would adopt guidelines comparable to the UK.
methodsWestern Australian real hospitalisation data for impacted/embedded teeth removal for 2008/2009 were extrapolated into a national, Australian-wide cost-distribution model for removal strategy. The components of a watchful monitoring strategy were calculated over a one-year, and 20-year period. Cost estimates for both strategies were then compared.
resultsThe estimated number of hospitalisations for impacted teeth in Australia in 2008/2009 for the age group 15-34 years was 97,949. The estimated average annual direct cost was $350 million, the indirect cost was $181 million and total cost was $531 million. Individual cost of the watchful monitoring strategy over 20 years was $1,077, with an annual estimated cost of $53. The proposed guidelines would lead to an annual figure of 83,850 individuals avoiding hospitalisation and shifting to watchful monitoring strategy, and an annual reduction of costs ranging between $420-513 million.
conclusionWith no evidence to support the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic wisdom teeth, a proposed watchful monitoring strategy is a more cost-effective alternative in the Australian context.
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.