ArticleAcademic pediatrics2024
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Population-Level Dental Caries Prevention Strategies in US Children.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct, Indirect, and Intangible Costs in the Management of Dental Caries in Children Under 18: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Minimum Intervention Oral Care (MIOC) - Overcoming Implementation Barriers: An International Expert Consensus.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Oral Health Care in the United States.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Discounting Practices in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Studies Published After 2020.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Review
- Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis in dental medicine: a systematic review with a focus on affordability and risk-aversion.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Review
- Dental Caries: The Way Forward.JDR clinical and translational research · 2025Article
- Optimisation of services to prevent dental caries for school-aged children in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo improve oral health disparities and outcomes among US children impacted by dental caries, there is a need to understand the cost-effectiveness of a targeted, risk-based versus universal-based approach for caries prevention.
methodsHealth and economic outcomes were simulated in a cohort of 50,000 US children aged 1-18 years, comparing current practice (CP) to risk-based-prevention (RBP) and prevention-for-all (PFA) strategies using health care sector and limited societal perspectives. Prevention included biannual oral health exams and fluoride varnish application, and one-time dental sealant placement. The primary outcome is the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained when comparing each strategy to the next least costly one.
resultsFor RBP compared to CP, the ICER was US$83,000/QALY from the health care sector perspective; for PFA compared to RBP the ICER was US$154,000/QALY. Using a limited societal perspective that includes caregiver time spent attending dental or medical setting visits, RBP compared to CP yielded a ratio of $119,000/QALY and PFA compared to RBP was $235,000/QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in the probability of pain from an episode of dental caries, costs for prevention and restoration, and the loss in health-related quality of life due to dental caries pain. Scenario analyses evaluating a reduced intensity of prevention services yielded lower ICERs.
conclusionUsing a risk-based approach that identifies and targets children at increased risk for dental caries to guide the delivery of prevention services represents an economic value similar to other pediatric prevention programs.
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.