There is a paucity of economic evaluations of prediction methods of caries and periodontitis-A systematic review

The value-for money of preventing and managing periodontitis: Opportunities and challenges

This article gives an overview of the societal and economic aspects of periodontitis and periodontal care. Despite its largely preventable nature, periodontitis is highly prevalent worldwide and imposes a substantial health and economic burden on individuals and society as a whole. The worldwide estimated direct treatment costs and productivity losses due to periodontitis (including for periodontitis-related tooth loss) amounted to US$ 186 billion and US$ 142 billion in 2019, respectively. The burden of periodontitis is particularly evident in low and disadvantaged populations. Smoking, dietary habits, and presence of systemic diseases along with social and commercial determinants are considered as risk factors for the periodontal diseases. The cost-effectiveness of preventing and managing periodontitis has been explored in several studies but it has been highlighted that there is scope for improvement in defining the methodology and quality of reporting of such studies. A recent report by The Economist Intelligence Unit examined the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and manage periodontal diseases, suggesting that prevention of periodontitis through prevention of gingivitis by means of individual home care would be more cost-efficient than four other examined approaches. Future research in this field is recommended to further decipher the economic burden of periodontitis to society and to assess the value for money of alternative approaches to address periodontitis with particular emphasis on public health preventive strategies and intersectoral care approaches that address the common risk factors of periodontitis and other non-communicable diseases simultaneously.

Predicting Dental Caries in Young Children in Primary Health Care Settings

Young children need increased access to dental prevention and care. Targeting high caries risk children first helps meet this need. The objective of this study was to develop a parent-completed, easy-to-score, short, accurate caries risk tool for screening in primary health care settings to identify children at increased risk for cavities. A longitudinal, prospective, multisite, cohort study enrolled (primarily through primary health care settings) and followed 985 (out of 1,326) 1-y-old children and their primary caregivers (PCGs) until age 4. The PCG completed a 52-item self-administered questionnaire, and children were examined using the International Caries Detection and Assessment Criteria (ICDAS) at 12 ± 3 mo (baseline), 30 ± 3 mo (80% retention), and 48 ± 3 mo of age (74% retention). Cavitated caries lesion (dmfs = decayed, missing, and filled surfaces; d = ICDAS ≥3) experience at 4 y of age was assessed and tested for associations with questionnaire items using generalized estimating equation models applied to logistic regression. Multivariable analysis used backward model selection, with a limit of 10 items. At age 4, 24% of children had cavitated-level caries experience; 49% were female; 14% were Hispanic, 41% were White, 33% were Black, 2% were other, and 10% were multiracial; 58% enrolled in Medicaid; and 95% lived in urban communities. The age 4 multivariable prediction model, using age 1 responses (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.73), included the following significant (P < 0.001) variables (odds ratios): child participating in public assistance programs such as Medicaid (1.74), being non-White (1.80-1.96), born premature (1.48), not born by caesarean section (1.28), snacking on sugary snacks (3 or more/d, 2.22; 1-2/d or weekly, 1.55), PCG cleaning the pacifier with juice/soda/honey or sweet drink (2.17), PCG daily sharing/tasting food with child using same spoon/fork/glass (1.32), PCG brushing their teeth less than daily (2.72), PCG's gums bleeding daily when brushing or PCG having no teeth (1.83-2.00), and PCG having cavities/fillings/extractions in past 2 y (1.55). A 10-item caries risk tool at age 1 shows good agreement with cavitated-level caries experience by age 4.

Economic Evaluations of Preventive Interventions for Dental Caries and Periodontitis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To critically examine the methods used for full economic evaluations of preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis.

METHODS

Published literature post-2000 was searched to April 2021. Based on a developed intervention classification framework for dental caries and periodontitis, only universal, selective or indicated interventions were included in this review. The Drummond 10-point checklist was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Of 3,007 unique records screened for relevance, 73 studies were reviewed. Most model-based studies (61/73) used cost-effectiveness analysis (49%) or cost-benefit analysis (28%). Trial-based studies (16/73) commonly used cost-effectiveness analysis (59%). Four studies used both economic evaluation methods. Sixty-four papers (88%) were on dental caries, eight papers (11%) focused on periodontitis, and one paper (1%) included both oral diseases; 72% of model-based and 82% of trial-based studies were of good quality. The most frequently investigated dental caries preventive interventions were water fluoridation (universal intervention; cost-saving or cost-effective), fissure sealant and fluoride varnish (selective and indicated interventions; cost-effectiveness outcomes were inconsistent). Supportive periodontal therapy with oral health education (indicated intervention; cost-effective) was the most frequently evaluated preventive intervention for periodontitis. Thirty percent of studies with a time horizon > 1 year did not apply an appropriate discount rate and 26% did not comprehensively discuss other important considerations beyond the technical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Generic health outcome measures should be incorporated for economic evaluations on preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis, and an increased focus to prevent periodontitis using economic evaluation methods is needed to inform resource allocation and policy decision-making.

There is a paucity of economic evaluations of prediction methods of caries and periodontitis-A systematic review

Objectives

Direct cost for methods of prediction also named risk assessment in dentistry may be negligible compared with the cost of extensive constructions. On the other hand, as risk assessment is performed daily and for several patients in general dental practice, the costs may be considerable. The objective was to summarize evidence in studies of economic evaluation of prognostic prediction multivariable models and methods of caries and periodontitis and to identify knowledge gaps (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020149763).

Material and methods

Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database) and reference lists of included studies were searched. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers in parallel. Full‐text studies reporting resources used, costs and cost‐effectiveness of prediction models and methods were selected and critically appraised using a protocol based on items from the CHEERS checklist for economic evaluations and the CHARMS checklist for evaluation of prediction studies.

Results

From 38 selected studies, six studies on prediction fulfilled the eligibility criteria, four on caries and two on periodontitis. As the economic evaluations differed in method and perspective among the studies, the results could not be generalized. Our systematic review revealed methodological shortcomings regarding the description of predictive models and methods, and particularly of the economic evaluation.

Conclusions

The systematic review highlighted a paucity of economic evaluations regarding methods or multivariable models for prediction of caries and periodontitis. Our results indicate that what we currently practice using models and methods to predict caries and periodontitis lacks evidence regarding cost‐effectiveness.