Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Sarah Simpson, Professor Paula WaterhouseORCiD
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2020, British Dental Association. Design A cost-effectiveness analysis of caries management in primary molars using Hall technique (HT) versus conventional restoration (CR) from a pre-existing dataset from a randomised split-mouth trial, within primary care in Scotland, with a five-year follow-up. Case selection Computer-generated block randomisation was used to match asymptomatic primary molars of 3-10-year-old children recruited from primary care, to either HT or CR arms. Economic evaluation A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. A five-year horizon was chosen. A societal perspective was adopted. Estimation of direct, indirect and opportunity costs were presented. Costs were discounted at 1.5%. Molar survival was chosen as the effectiveness measure. Data analysis Statistical significance of primary outcome (survival) was examined using the log-rank test. Bootstrapping produced a sampling distribution of mean cost and effectiveness with a 95% confidence interval around a mean value. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was provided. Results HT molars had superior survival of 99% (95% CI: 98-100%) compared to CR at 92% (95% CI: 87-97%). Initials costs indicated HT to be more expensive than CR; however, direct costs, including retreatments, were cheaper for HT when using both NHS Scotland and NHS England cost data. Indirect/opportunity costs, including time and travel of parents, were significantly less for HT. Total cumulative costs were significantly lower in HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31-34) than CR (49 GBP; 34-69). HT dominated CR, being less costly and more effective with a mean ICER of 2.38 GBP spent additionally while losing 1% of molar survival with CR over HT. Conclusions HT molars are cost-effective, compared to CR, when managing asymptomatic carious primary molars after five years' follow-up.
Author(s): Simpson S, Waterhouse PJ
Publication type: Review
Publication status: Published
Journal: Evidence-Based Dentistry
Year: 2020
Volume: 21
Issue: 4
Pages: 128-129
Print publication date: 31/12/2020
Online publication date: 18/12/2020
Acceptance date: 02/04/2018
ISSN (print): 1462-0049
ISSN (electronic): 1476-5446
Publisher: Springer Nature
URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0134-2
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-020-0134-2
