ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2026
Cost-effectiveness of interceptive orthodontics: a long-term evaluation of early treatment strategies.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMalocclusions occur at high frequencies in children and adolescents. While early orthodontic (interceptive) interventions may reduce the need for later comprehensive treatment, their cost-effectiveness in publicly funded health systems is unclear. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of interceptive orthodontic care and fixed-appliance therapy, focusing on total costs, treatment outcomes, and resource use.
methodsA decision tree model was developed using observational data on treatment success rates, duration, and appointments to estimate resource use and costs for interceptive orthodontic care; Fixed Appliance therapy was modeled as an optimal 2-year treatment pathway. A health-care payer perspective was applied. Incremental costs and effects were calculated for four interceptive modalities: Quad Helix, Extraoral Traction (EOT), Removable Plates, and Activator appliances, as compared to fixed appliance therapy. Minimum required success rates were estimated for achieving cost-neutrality. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (10 000 Monte Carlo simulations) and scenario analyses assessed the robustness of the results.
resultsAll the interceptive treatments demonstrated lower expected costs than the fixed appliance therapy, albeit with lower clinical effectiveness. Quad Helix exceeded the minimum required success rate 20% points, representing a clear margin of cost-effectiveness. Removable Plates also exceeded the minimum required success rate, but with a smaller margin of 6% points. The Activator and EOT appliances were more dependent on patient compliance and failed to meet the minimum required success rate, requiring increases of 13% and 10% points, respectively, to achieve cost-neutrality. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these patterns and underscored the importance of long-term treatment stability. LIMITATIONS: The model assumed a 100% success rate for fixed appliances and relied on expert opinion for long-term stability parameters, given the limited availability of relapse data.
conclusionsIn the publicly funded dental care context studied, the use of Quad Helix and removable plates in publicly funded health-care systems appears to be cost-effective. Activator and EOT appliances should be used selectively. The study also contributes a transparent, adaptable modeling framework that can incorporate locally relevant costs and future long-term outcome data, supporting use in other publicly funded settings.
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.