ArticleAJPM focus2025
Oral Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Resealing First Permanent Molars.
Article in AJPM focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: This study examined the cost-effectiveness and health impact of various dental sealant resealing scenarios for first permanent molars from the payer perspective. Methods: The authors used a discrete event simulation model for 4,000 recently sealed first molars in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 children aged 7 years over a 10-year time horizon. Scenarios included a base case of no resealing, resealing at first dental visit, and resealing at the age of 12 years. Results: Without resealing, only 34.88% of teeth retained sealants after 10 years, whereas resealing at the age of 12 years increased this to 53.05%, and resealing at first dental visit increased it to 43.48%. Resealing at age 12 years significantly reduced decay experience to 26.65%, and resealing at first dental visit reduced it to 25.30%, compared with 41.15% for no resealing. The number of accrued disability-adjusted life years was highest for no resealing (5.35). This number reduced to 3.52 for resealing at age of 12 years and 3.19 for resealing at the first dental visit. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the most effective resealing scenario, resealing at the first dental visit, also had the lowest cost per averted cavity ($43.03) and cost per averted disability-adjusted life year ($6,753). Conclusions: This simulation model indicates that resealing significantly reduces dental decay over 10 years at reasonable costs, using conservative modeling assumptions. These findings suggest that insurance companies and Medicaid could benefit from implementing resealing policies to improve dental health outcomes by reducing caries and filling costs.
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.