ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Cost-efficiency analysis of atraumatic restorative treatment with and without chemical-mechanical caries removal agents based on pain and time for selective removal of carious tissue: a public health perspective.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the Cost-Efficiency of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) with a chemical-mechanical caries removal agent (CMCRA, Papacárie Duo Gel MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Cost-Efficiency analysis was conducted using TreeAgePro software, considering a 12-month horizon and a hypothetical cohort based on Monte Carlo microsimulation. ART + CMCRA was compared to ART in deciduous teeth, based on 26,700 treatments performed on children attended by SUS in Rio de Janeiro. Direct costs were calculated in Brazilian currency using the microcosting technique. Efficiency measures related to pain and caries removal time were extracted from a high-quality randomized clinical trial. Probabilistic simulation considered a 95% confidence interval and a 5% variation in parameters, generating acceptability curves to estimate the probability of treatment choice.
resultsART + CMCRA proved superior (p < 0,001) in terms of benefit. For pain perceived efficiency, ART + CMCRA resulted in a cost increase of R$ 0.23 per procedure, with an additional benefit of 47.53%. For time efficiency, there was a cost increase of R$ 0.24 per procedure, with an additional benefit of 14.19%.
conclusionART + CMCRA is a cost-efficient option for SUS. The implementation of this technique in Rio de Janeiro's public health system can be recommended due to the reduced pain, despite requiring a higher willingness to pay for the additional benefits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The adoption of ART + CMCRA in SUS can significantly improve the experience of pediatric patients by reducing pain, making dental treatment more efficient and humane.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39960505What 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.