ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Cost-effectiveness of restorative treatments for permanent molars with severe molar incisor hypomineralization: perspectives for the Brazilian public health system.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Restorative materials for direct coronal restoration of permanent posterior teeth: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of different cavity patterns and treatment methods in molars with molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) - retrospective 9 months results.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Discounting Practices in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Studies Published After 2020.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Review
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Dental Professionals and Students on MIH: A Scoping Review.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2025Article
- 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
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of restorative treatments for a first permanent molar with severe molar incisor hypomineralization from the perspective of the Brazilian public system. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo models were constructed: a one-year decision tree and a ten-year Markov model, each based on a hypothetical cohort of one thousand individuals through Monte Carlo simulation. Eight restorative strategies were evaluated: high viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC); encapsulated GIC; etch and rinse adhesive + composite; self-etch adhesive + composite; preformed stainless steel crown; HVGIC + etch and rinse adhesive + composite; HVGIC + self-etch adhesive + composite, and encapsulated GIC + etch and rinse adhesive + composite. Effectiveness data were sourced from the literature. Micro-costing was applied using 2022 USD market averages with a 5% variation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (%NMB), and the budgetary impact were obtained.
resultsCost-effective treatments included HVGIC (%NMB = 0%/ 0%), encapsulated GIC (%NMB = 19.4%/ 19.7%), and encapsulated GIC + etch and rinse adhesive + composite (%NMB = 23.4%/ 24.5%) at 1 year and 10 years, respectively. The benefit gain of encapsulated GIC + etch and rinse adhesive + composite in relation to encapsulated GIC was small when compared to the cost increase at 1 year (gain of 3.28% and increase of USD 24.26) and 10 years (gain of 4% and increase of USD 15.54).
conclusionWithin the horizon and perspective analyzed, the most cost-effective treatment was encapsulated GIC restoration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study can provide information for decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38710794What 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.