Cost-effectiveness of child caries management: a randomised controlled trial (FiCTION trial)

Abstract

Background: A three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA). Methods: Data on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The coprimary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Results: A total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI:-£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (− 0.06; 97.5% CI: − 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (− 0.14; 97.5% CI: − 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P. Conclusions: The mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%. Trial registration: The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine Compared to a Combination of Intranasal Dexmedetomidine with Ketamine for Sedation of Children Requiring Dental Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…In the first group, the recovery time was up to 1.3 times longer. This difference is significant and impacts the dental practice, throughput, scheduling, efficiency, and finances, especially in the office-based setting [42,50]. The single drug use provided a better length of recovery which is desirable for the patient and the service organization, even though the efficacy of the two sedative regimes in managing children's behavior is similar.…”

Management of dental caries lesions in Latin American and Caribbean countries

“…Strategies that combine biological approaches with the best preventive practice (B+P; based on either non-caries tissue removal or selective caries tissue removal followed by restoration) for the management of caries lesions in the primary dentition have been found to be the most cost effective in studies conducted in developed countries. 87 Although clinical trials using similar approaches have been conducted in deprived communities in LACCs, 22 evidence on their costeffectiveness is still scarce. Conversely, controversial results regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures for first permanent molars have shown some dependency on the application of fluoride varnishes and pit and fissure sealants.…”

Economic evaluations in paediatric dentistry clinical trials

“…That vast majority of CEAs undertaken in paediatric dentistry focus on programmes aimed at the reduction of dental caries 3 . Even so, CEAs use a wide range of outcome measures including DMFT, 19‐21 number of dental visits for treatment, 22,23 survival of molars 24 and incidence of dental pain; 25 hence, their findings are less comparable. To avoid this problem, the natural effect measure can be replaced by a standardised utility measure as a generic measure of the benefits.…”