Trial reportBMC oral health2026
GuREx-MIH: cost-effectiveness analysis of extraction versus restorative treatment for first permanent molars affected by Molar-Incisor Hypomineralisation in 11-year-old Swedish children.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06228989 (Restoration or Extraction as Dental Therapy in First Permanent Molars With Severe Hypomineralized Enamel), which is not on this 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.
Restoration or Extraction as Dental Therapy in First Permanent Molars With Severe Hypomineralized Enamel (MIH) - a National Randomized Prospective Multicenter Study
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extraction compared with restorative treatment of first permanent molars (FPMs) affected by Molar–Incisor Hypomineralisation (MIH) in 11-year-olds in Sweden.
methodsSeventy-five patients from the GuREx-MIH project were included. Of these, 43 were randomised to the Restorative treatment group (ReTG) and 32 to the Extraction treatment group (ExTG). Healthcare costs were calculated from dental records, while non-healthcare costs, were collected through surveys. Effectiveness was measured using the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and the proportion of patients achieving a minimally important difference (MID). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in effectiveness between groups.
resultsThe ExTG incurred higher mean healthcare (€1,417 vs. €1,051; p = 0.029) and total costs (€2,950 vs. €2,161; p = 0.029) compared with the ReTG, almost entirely due to general anaesthesia (GA), while non-healthcare costs were (€1,531 vs. €1,111; p = 0.117). When patients treated under GA were excluded, the ExTG became less costly, with lower healthcare costs (€868 vs. €1,051; p = 0.039), fewer visits (9.2 vs. 11.4; p = 0.025), and shorter chair time (324 vs. 401 min; p = 0.040). ICERs showed that with GA, extraction was associated with higher incremental costs per MID responder (€2,593 healthcare; €6,110 total). Without GA, extraction was either dominant when only healthcare costs were considered or showed a cost of €4,201 per MID responder when considering total costs.
conclusionsCompared with restorative treatment, extraction was associated with higher healthcare and total costs, primarily due to general anaesthesia, but also linked with a greater proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvements in oral health-related quality of life at the age of 11 years.
trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 29th of January 2024, registration number: NCT06228989.
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.