A Survey of Patients' Preferences for the Treatment of Teeth with Apical Periodontitis

Healing of apical periodontitis in type II diabetes mellitus patients: A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the healing of periapical bone between type II diabetes patients and healthy patients after root canal treatment.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This study included 26 diabetic patients and the control group with healthy patients matching the diabetic group in age and sex. The study included only teeth with satisfactory coronal restoration. The periapical index system was used to evaluate the periapical status of treated teeth at follow-ups after 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Analysis of the results revealed a significantly higher healing rate in the control group compared to the diabetic group only at the 6-month follow-up (66.6 vs. 33.3%; Χ2 = 4.857; p = 0.0275). Analysis of the full-scale PAI index disclosed significantly higher PAI values in the diabetic subjects at 6- and 12-month follow-up. The regression analysis showed that the risk of apical periodontitis persistence increased significantly with female gender (OR = 3.92; 95% CI = 1.04-14.79; p = 0.043), diabetes mellitus (OR = 4.27; 95% CI: 1.18-15.50; p = 0.027) and higher household income (OR = 5.39; 95% CI = 1.33-21.89; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Root canal treatment remains an effective means of conservative treatment in diabetic patients. While the healing is not compromised, regular follow-ups are necessary to monitor the healing process.

Management and saving a traumatized poor prognosis maxillary central incisor for 18 years: A patient-centered treatment

Key clinical message

With today's increasing desire to preserve natural teeth, managing teeth with a poor prognosis is a new challenge for clinicians. A dentist's attention to patient-centered care is essential, which improves dental outcomes.

Abstract

Nowadays, patients' interest in preserving their natural teeth has increased. In the patient-centered care model, the clinician should consider the patient's preferences and values in the treatment plan. This strengthens the patient's responsibility toward his own body, resulting in more patient satisfaction and effective cooperation. Therefore, the skill of saving teeth with a poor prognosis, in which there was no other choice but to extract them, becomes essential in patients who want to preserve their natural teeth. This case report presents the successful 18-year treatment and management of a maxillary central incisor of a 17-year-old male with a horizontal root fracture, who was incompletely treated in another medical center when the trauma occurred. The patient presented to us after 6 months. Due to the short length of the root, the patient underwent regenerative endodontic treatment first, but he did not attend follow-ups. Finally, after 8 years, the patient returned with symptoms of infection and periapical radiolucency. The apical part of the root was resorbed during this time. Finally, it was decided to place an apical plug with MTA. MTA was extruded from the apical part of the root canal during the placement of the apical plug. In the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 10-year follow-ups, the patient was completely asymptomatic, and the radiolucent periradicular lesion had healed. However, the extruded MTA was still present in the radiographic images without interfering with the healing process. Finally, the tooth has remained functional for 18 years.

Feasibility of minimum intervention oral healthcare delivery for individuals with dental phobia

BACKGROUND

People with dental phobia often present with more active dental caries and fewer teeth. Minimally Intervention oral Healthcare offers a possible solution to address the high care needs of this group. The aim was to determine this patient group's eligibility and willingness to participate and the effect of MIOC, compared to treatment as usual (TAU), on their oral health outcomes for planning a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). Minimum intervention oral healthcare (MIOC) comprises of four interlinked domains. In the first domain, we identified and diagnosed the disease status and participants' anxiety status (≥ 19 MDAS). In the second domain, an individualised prevention-based personalised care plan was designed. During this process, patients with dental phobia were exposed to the dental environment in a stepped manner ('graded exposure') and had their urgent care provided with conscious sedation. In the 3^rd domain, we took a minimally invasive operative approach to restore teeth while preserving tooth substance and limiting the use of fear-provoking stimuli (e.g., rotary instruments) when possible. At the review and the recall appointment(s) (4^th domain), the patients' oral health care behaviours, disease risk/susceptibility and fear levels were re-assessed.

METHODS

This two-arm randomised feasibility trial (N = 44) allocated participants to the experimental arm (MIOC) or the control arm (treatment as usual [TAU]). The primary outcomes were the eligibility and willingness to participate and feasibility to conduct a trial of MIOC for people with dental phobia. The secondary outcomes were oral health status, oral health related quality of life and care completion. A written and verbal consent for participation and dental care provision were obtained.

RESULTS

Forty-four people diagnosed with dental phobia were allocated randomly to the two study arms. At the six-month recall after completed care, the outcome of each study arm was assessed. It was feasible to conduct a clinical trial (eligibility rate [56%], completion rate [81%], declined to participate [12%]). The intervention group showed improvements in all health care outcomes, and oral health related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

A clinical trial of MIOC vs TAU in people with dental phobia is feasible. Preliminary findings suggest that patients in the MIOC arm are more likely to successfully complete their course of treatment. The study was 'retrospectively registered' on 02/05/2018 (ISRCT15294714) with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCT).

Cost-effectiveness analysis: nonsurgical root canal treatment versus single-tooth implant

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation of nonsurgical root canal treatment (NSRCT) and single-tooth implant (STI) provides useful information for medical decision. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSRCT versus single-tooth implant (STI) after 5-year treatment in a university affiliated hospital in Beijing, China.

METHODS

211 patients who underwent NSRCT and 142 patients who had STI were included and recalled after 5-year treatment. The propensity scores were used to match the cases of two treatment modalities. At recall, outcomes were determined based on clinical and radiographical examinations. For endodontically treated cases, absence or reduction of radiolucency were defined as success. Marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm were determined as success for implant cases. Direct and indirect costs were calculated in China Yuan (CNY). Patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for each treatment modality was evaluated by questionnaires. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

170 patients with 120 NSRCT teeth and 96 STI were available at recall. Based on propensity score matching, 76 endodontically treated teeth were matched to 76 implants. Absence of the radiolucency was observed in 58 of 76 endodontically treated teeth (76%) and reduction of the radiolucency in 9 of 76 teeth (12%) and altogether the success rate was 88%. 100% implants were detected with marginal bone loss (MBL) ≤ 4 mm. The cost advantage of NSRCT (4,751 CNY) over STI (20,298 CNY) was more pronounced. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 129,563 CNY (STI-NSRCT) per success rate gained. It exceeded the patients' willingness to pay value 7,533 CNY.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes of NSRCT and STI could be predictable after 5-year treatment. NSRCT may be more cost-effective than STI for managing endodontically diseased teeth.

Clinical Efficacy of an Extraoral Dental Evacuation Device in Aerosol Elimination During Endodontic Access Preparation

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused many concerns in the dental field regarding aerosol production and the transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus during dental procedures. Because of the abrupt arrival of COVID-19, there has been little to no published research on the efficacy of dental suction devices in the removal of aerosols related to COVID-19 or the impact extraoral suction devices have on patients' experiences. Therefore, the aim of this study was to measure the amount of aerosol produced during endodontic access preparation for root canal therapy with and without the use of an extraoral dental suction device and to gather information through a survey regarding patients' experiences.

METHODS

Aerosol measurements were recorded in 8 closed-door resident operatories each morning before the procedures, 1 minute during the procedure, and 15 minutes after the access was complete. The CICADA DTO KN99 Extraoral Dental Suction Device (Foshan Cicada, Guangdong, China) was placed in 4 operatories, whereas no DTO extraoral suction device was used in 4 control operatories. Twenty cases with DTO and 20 cases without it were completed, and the data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Aerosols 1 minute after access were higher with and without DTO. There was a significant reduction after 15 minutes when the DTO device was used compared to high-volume suction alone. Composite and zirconia produced the most aerosols at 1 minute.

CONCLUSION

The results show that the reduction of aerosols is enhanced when the extraoral suction device is used in combination with traditional high-volume evacuation. However, the increased noise level when using the device can have a negative impact on patients' dental experience.

Impact of different regenerative techniques and materials on the healing outcome of endodontic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regenerative techniques are increasingly applied in endodontic surgery, but different materials used in regenerative techniques may have varying impacts on wound healing.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effects of different regenerative techniques and materials on the outcome of endodontic surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

patients with persistent periapical lesions, treated with root-end surgery.

CONTROL

endodontic surgery without the use of regenerative techniques/materials.

INTERVENTION

endodontic surgery with the use of regenerative techniques/materials.

OUTCOME

combined clinical and radiographic results.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, SinoMed and the CENTRAL Cochrane were searched up to 10th July 2020, followed by a manual search. Detailed eligibility criteria were applied. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool 2.0 was used to assess the risk of bias of the eligible studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the regenerative materials used in endodontic surgery.

RESULTS

Eleven eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis: two had a low risk of overall bias, and nine had some concerns of overall bias. Generally, the use of regenerative techniques significantly improved the outcome of endodontic surgery (risk ratio [RR]: 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.68; P < 0.001). On subgroup analysis, the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membranes alone had no added benefits (RR: 2.00; 95% CI, 0.22-18.33; P = 0.54). The application of collagen membranes or autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) alone was associated with a trend for better outcomes (RR: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.25; P = 0.14) (RR: 0.55; 95% CI, 0.18-1.71; P = 0.30). The combined use of collagen membranes and bovine-derived hydroxyapatite significantly improved the outcome (RR: 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P = 0.007).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review evaluated the effects of collagen membranes, e-PTFE membranes, APCs and bone grafting materials, providing detailed information about the risks and benefits of using each regenerative technique/material or its combination in endodontic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Regenerative techniques improve periapical lesion healing after endodontic surgery. The combined use of collagen membranes and bovine-derived hydroxyapatite may be beneficial as an adjunct to endodontic surgery. In contrast, the positive efficacy of e-PTFE membranes or APCs alone remains doubtful.

German Dentists' Preferences for the Treatment of Apical Periodontitis: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Currently, there is no standard treatment protocol for apical periodontitis (AP). Thus, restorable teeth might get extracted and replaced prosthetically. This study evaluated German dentists’ preferred AP treatment decisions and the influencing factors for selecting tooth retention by initial/repeated surgical/non-surgical root-canal treatment (RCT) or extraction with/without prosthetic replacement. Through an online-survey, participants (n = 260) rated different treatment options for four case scenarios with AP in anterior/posterior teeth without/with previous RCT. Statistical analysis included the Friedman test for intra-case comparisons and Chi-squared test for factor-associations (p ≤ 0.05). Tooth retention using initial/repeated RCT was ranked first in all scenarios and rated as (very) appropriate by most participants, while implant-supported crowns (ISC) and apicoectomy had the second ratings. ISC were preferred more on posterior teeth or previous root-canal-treated teeth. Rating levels of treatment options displayed significant differences for all case scenarios. Posterior tooth retention by RCT demonstrated a significant association with work experience. Tooth retention with previous RCT displayed a significant correlation with dentists’ privately insured patients. Most dentists preferred tooth preserving with initial/repeated RCT, while others selected non-evidence-based choices. This reflects a lack of consensus of AP treatment decisions in Germany. Fixed treatment guidelines and further evaluation of treatment–decision-correlated factors are recommended for correct treatment planning.

Objective computerised assessment of residual ridge resorption in the human maxilla and maxillary sinus pneumatisation

OBJECTIVES

Atrophic resorption of the maxillary alveolar ridge is a complication that makes implantological rehabilitation critical. Our aim was to develop a novel computer aided procedure for the accurate quantitative assessment of maxillary residual ridge resorption including pneumatisation of the maxillary sinus that goes beyond previously described approaches and to apply it to a large dataset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To develop and refine the method, we performed a retrospective analysis using computed tomography data from 405 patients to generate segmented, three-dimensional models of zygomaticomaxillary bones and maxillary sinuses. Using anatomical landmarks and orientation lines or planes, all models were aligned automatically to subsequently generate cross-sectional images (n = 2835), enabling the classification of atrophy as well as the quantification of volumes and caudal extensions of the maxillary sinuses.

RESULTS

We developed and implemented an accurate and reproducible workflow for the semi-automated analysis of volumetric maxillary images. Comprehensive statistical analysis of the large quantitative dataset revealed various correlations of maxillary process heights and sinus volumes with atrophy class, age and region and identified conjectural trends over the patient group.

CONCLUSIONS

The method was used successfully to process a large dataset to classify atrophy, to measure alveolar height parameters, and to quantify maxillary sinus volume, bottom volume and pneumatisation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Apart from the anthropometric value of the generated dataset, the method could be applied to provide additional and more accurate data to assess the necessity of bone augmentation in the context of three-dimensional planning before implantation.

Dentists' clinical decision-making about teeth with apical periodontitis using a variable-controlled survey model in South Korea

BACKGROUND

This study, by using a variable-controlled survey model, sought to compare clinical decisions made by dentists with different clinical backgrounds in South Korea regarding teeth with apical periodontitis and to identify factors that influenced decision-making.

METHODS

A questionnaire with 36 questions about identical patient information, clinical signs, and symptoms was filled out by participants. Each question referred to a radiograph that had been manipulated using computer software in order to control tooth-related factors. Participants were instructed to record their demographic information and choose the ideal treatment option related to each radiograph. Simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses (p < .05) were used to investigate factors related to the decision to extract the tooth. We divided factors into dentist-related factors (gender, years of experience, and professional registration) and tooth-related factors (tooth position, coronal status, root canal filling status, and size of the periapical radiolucency). Dentists were categorized into three groups, based on professional registration: general dental practitioners (GDPs), endodontists, and other specialists. Simple logistic regression analysis (p < .05) was used to evaluate the tooth-related factors influencing extraction, depending on the dentists' specialty.

RESULTS

Participants mostly preferred saving the teeth over extraction. This preference was highest among the endodontists, followed by other specialists and GDPs. Extractions were significantly preferred for molars, teeth with previous root canal fillings, and those with apical lesions greater than 5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that dentists' decision-making regarding teeth with apical periodontitis was associated with their work experience and specialty and influenced by tooth position, root canal filling status, and size of the apical lesion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This survey revealed that clinical decision-making related to teeth with apical periodontitis was affected by dentists' specialty and work experience and by tooth-related factors, such as tooth position, root canal filling status, and size of the apical lesion.

Dentists and Dental Intern’s Preferences of Root Canal Treatment with Restoration Versus Extraction then Implant-Supported Crown Treatment Plan

Objectives:

The intent of this study was to evaluate and compare the preferences and treatment choices between dentists and dental interns with regard to the following different treatment modalities: Root Canal Treatment (RCT) with restoration versus extraction with Implant-Supported Crown (ISC) or surgical treatment in relation to the given case scenarios.

Methods:

The questionnaire was presented as an online survey with a case scenario. The total number of the respondents were 165. The four clinical case scenarios included an anterior and posterior tooth having apical periodontitis, with and without previous RCT. The treatment options were as follows: RCT with restoration, extraction then implant, and surgical treatment.

Results:

A total of 165 dentists and dental interns were included in this study. A hundred and three 62.4% respondents were dentists, 60; 36.3% were males and 105; 63.7% were females. Most of the respondents graduated from the College of Dentistry, Jazan University (93.9%). The highest percentages and numbers for Anterior Teeth (AT) were selected in related to the RCT and restorations in the four scenarios among gender, dentists, and interns, with no considerable differences. A high percentage of RCT and restoration option was recorded for Posterior Teeth (PT) with no previous restoration and around 50% for the same treatment modality to posterior teeth with previous restorations. For Future Planning Postgraduate Studies (FPPS), it was obvious that most of the selected specialties agreed with the RCT and restorations choice.

Conclusion:

All dentists and interns in both genders preferred RCT with restorations over extraction, and then ISC in the AT with and without previous RCTs. In the PT with no previous RCT, the participants agreed that RCT with restorations is superior to other choices. Among the FPPS, the respondents demonstrated an absolute agreement to RCT and restorations as a treatment of choice for different scenarios.

Clinical Significance:

Dentists should preserve the natural teeth by RCT with restoration as the first treatment choice followed by other choices. The nonsurgical approach should always be adopted as a routine measure in PA lesions of endodontic origin. Conservative orthograde endodontic therapy demonstrates favorable outcomes with a regular periodic review and assessment of the healing process of PA lesions.

Influence of academic training in endodontics and implantology on decision-making in undergraduate students

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of academic training on decision-making in a group of undergraduates who have undergone training in endodontics and implantology.

BASIC PROCEDURES

A single group of undergraduate dentistry students (n = 65) was given a survey consisting of 15 endodontic cases. Each case included periapical radiographs and clinical photographs. Students were asked to select one of the eight proposed treatments. In their 4th year, the students first responded to the survey after completing endodontics. One year later, after completing their studies in implantology, the same students completed the same survey again.

MAIN FINDINGS

Under the conditions of this study, differences in undergraduate training significantly affected treatment decisions.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Undergraduate decision-making was affected by academic training.

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions

BACKGROUND

When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves removal of root canal filling materials from the tooth, followed by cleaning, shaping and obturating of the canals. Root-end resection is a surgical procedure that involves exposure of the periapical lesion through an osteotomy, surgical removal of the lesion, removal of part of the root-end tip, disinfection and, commonly, retrograde sealing or filling of the apical portion of the remaining root canal. This review updates one published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of surgical and non-surgical therapy for retreatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.To assess effects of surgical root-end resection under various conditions, for example, when different materials, devices or techniques are used.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 10 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 February 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 February 2016). We searched the US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 10 February 2016). We placed no restrictions regarding language and publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis. Studies could compare surgery versus non-surgical treatment or could compare different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer; postoperative pain and discomfort; and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus periapical radiography for preoperative assessment (one study at high risk of bias); antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo (one study at unclear risk); different magnification devices (loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) (two studies at high risk); types of incision (papilla base incision, sulcular incision) (one study at high risk and one at unclear risk); ultrasonic devices versus handpiece burs (one study at high risk); types of root-end filling material (glass ionomer cement, amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), gutta-percha (GP), super-ethoxy benzoic acid (EBA)) (five studies at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk and one at low risk); grafting versus no grafting (three studies at high risk and one at unclear risk); and low energy level laser therapy versus placebo (irradiation without laser activation) versus control (no use of the laser device) (one study at high risk).There was no clear evidence of superiority of the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or 10-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence).There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence).There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day 1 post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, and to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, precisely defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.

Choice of Treatment Plan Based on Root Canal Therapy versus Extraction and Implant Placement: A Mini Review

Case selection and treatment plan are important aspects of endodontic treatment. Dentists should organize the treatment plan based on their knowledge, abilities, skills and more importantly the patients’ preference and dentition. Indubitably, the treatment plan for each patient is exclusive and “tailor-made” and cannot be used for all patients. Dentists’ selfestimation of their abilities opens up treatment options; however, in difficult or complicated cases it is advisable to refer to a specialist. Currently, one of the most challenging aspects in dentistry is the choice between extraction and placement of implant (EPI) instead of a complicated root canal treatment (RCT). Overemphasis on one treatment plan while neglecting other options, not only mislead the dentist but also impose unnecessary charges to the patients. This mini-review compares RCT to EPI from various aspects to help practitioners in routine decision making.

Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups - a micro-simulation study

BACKGROUND

Whilst being the most prevalent disease worldwide, dental caries is increasingly concentrated in high-risk populations. New caries treatments should therefore be evaluated not only in terms of their cost-effectiveness in individuals, but also their effects on the distribution of costs and benefits across different populations. To treat deep caries, there are currently three strategies: selective (one-step incomplete), stepwise (two-step incomplete) and complete excavation. Building on prior research that found selective excavation generally cost-effective, we compared the costs-effectiveness of different excavations in low- and high-risk patients, hypothesizing that selective excavation had greater cost-effectiveness-advantages in patients with high compared with low risk.

METHODS

An average tooth-level Markov-model was constructed following the posterior teeth in an initially 18-year old male individual, either with low or high risk, over his lifetime. Risk was assumed to be predicted by several parameters (oral hygiene, social position, dental service utilization), with evidence-based transition probabilities or hazard functions being adjusted for different risk status where applicable. Total lifetime treatment costs were estimated for German healthcare, with both mixed public-private and only private out-of-pocket costs being calculated. For cost-effectiveness-analysis, micro-simulations were performed and joint parameter uncertainty introduced by random sampling of probabilities. Cohort analyses were used for assessing the underlying reasons for potential differences between strategies and populations.

RESULTS

Selective excavation was more effective and less costly than both alternatives regardless of an individual's risk. All three strategies were less effective and more costly in patients with high compared with low risk, whilst the differences between risk groups were smallest for selective excavation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness-advantages of selective excavation were more pronounced in high-risk groups, who also benefitted the most from reduced private out-of-pocket treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst caries excavation does not tackle the underlying sources for both the development of caries lesions and the potential differences of individuals' risk status, selective excavation seems most suitable to treat deep lesions, especially in patients with high risk, who over-proportionally benefit from the resulting health-gains and cost-savings.