ArticleJournal of dental research2022
Public Valuation of Direct Restorations: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Journal of dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Patient preferences and willingness to pay for dental services: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- EFCD Expert Non-Consensus on Material and Technique Use for Direct Class II Composites With Guidance on Restoring Complex Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Restorations: Amalgam Dominates.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Amalgam versus composite restorations: a cost-consequence analysis.British dental journal · 2026Article
- Factors influencing dentists' choice of restorative materials for occlusal cavities: a cross-sectional study from Palestine.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Guardians' preferences for pit and fissure sealing services in China: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The long-term oral health consequences of an amalgam phase-out.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Dental Amalgam Phase-Down-Status, Alternatives, Strategies and Preparedness for Implementation: A Review.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
- Survival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct posterior dental restorations are commonly provided following management of dental caries. Amalgam use has been phased down and the feasibility of a phase-out by 2030 is being explored. Alternative direct restorative materials differ in their outcomes and provision. This research aimed to elicit the UK population's preferences for different attributes of restorations and their willingness to pay (WTP) for restorative services and outcomes. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed with patient and public involvement and distributed to a representative sample of the UK general population using an online survey. Respondents answered 17 choice tasks between pairs of scenarios that varied in levels of 7 attributes (wait for filling, clinician type, filling color, length of procedure, likely discomfort after filling, average life span of filling, and cost). An opt-out (no treatment) was included. Mixed logit models were used for data analysis. Marginal WTP for attribute levels and relative attribute importance were calculated. In total, 1,002 respondents completed the DCE. Overall, respondents were willing to pay £39.52 to reduce a 6-wk wait for treatment to 2 wk, £13.55 to have treatment by a dentist rather than a therapist, £41.66 to change filling color from silvery/gray to white, £0.27 per minute of reduced treatment time, £116.52 to move from persistent to no postoperative pain, and £5.44 per year of increased restoration longevity. Ability to pay affected willingness to pay, with low-income respondents more likely to opt out of treatment and value restoration color (white) and increased longevity significantly lower than those with higher income. Clinicians should understand potential drivers of restoration choice, so they can be discussed with individual patients to obtain consent. It is important that policy makers consider general population preferences for restorative outcomes and services, with an awareness of how income affects these, when considering the potential phase-out of amalgam restorations.
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.