Economic evaluations in paediatric dentistry clinical trials

Irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth: a cost-effectiveness analysis of pulpotomy versus root canal treatment

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based dentistry suggests pulpotomy as a potential alternative to root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the evidence surrounding the cost-valuation and cost-efficacy of this treatment modality is not yet established. In this context, we adopted an economic modeling approach to assess the cost-effectiveness of pulpotomy versus root canal treatment, as this could aid in effective clinical decision-making.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed following a mature permanent tooth with irreversible pulpitis in an 18-year-old patient over a lifetime using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2022. Transition probabilities were estimated based on existing literature. Costs were estimated based on the United States healthcare following a private-payer perspective and parameter uncertainties were addressed using Monte-Carlo simulations. The model was validated internally by sensitivity analyses, and face validation was performed by an experienced endodontist and health economist.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, root canal treatment was associated with additional health benefit but at an increased cost (1.08 more years with an incremental cost of 311.20 USD) over a period of an individual's lifetime. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed pulpotomy to be cost-effective at lower Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) values (99.9% acceptable at 50 USD) whereas increasing the values of WTP threshold root canal treatment was a cost-effective treatment (99.9% acceptable at 550 USD).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, pulpotomy was a cost-effective treatment option at lower WTP values for the management of irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth. However, by increasing the WTP threshold, root canal treatment became a more cost-effective treatment option over a period of lifetime of an individual.

Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations' survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This non-inferiority randomised clinical trial aimed to evaluate the survival of direct bulk fill composite resin restorations in primary molars using different methods of moisture control: rubber dam isolation (RDI-local anaesthesia and rubber dam) and cotton roll isolation (CRI-cotton roll and saliva ejector). Secondary outcomes included baseline and 2-year incremental cost, self-reported child's pain scores and patient behaviour during the restorative procedure.

METHODS

A total of 174 molars (93 children) with dentine caries lesions were randomly allocated to study groups (RDI or CRI) and restored with bulk fill composite resin by trained operators. Two blinded examiners assessed the restorations for up to 24 months. Wong-baker faces and Frankl's behaviour rating scales were used for accessing the child's pain and behaviour, respectively. The primary outcome (restoration survival) was analysed using the two-sample non-inferiority test for survival data using Cox Regression (non-inferiority/alternative hypothesis HR > 0.85; CI = 90%). Bootstrap Linear regression was used for cost analysis and logistic regression for pain and behaviour analysis (α = 5%).

RESULTS

After 2-years, 157 restorations were evaluated (drop-out = 9.7%). The survival rate was RDI = 60.4% and CRI = 54.3%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was accepted by the Cox Regression analysis (HR = 1.33; 90% CI 0.88-1.99; p = 0.036). RDI was 53% more expensive when compared to the CRI group. No differences were found between the groups regarding pain (p = 0.073) and behaviour (p = 0.788).

CONCLUSION

Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior when compared to rubber dam for composite restorations longevity in primary molars. Furthermore, the latest presented the disadvantage of higher cost and longer procedure time. Clinical Significance The moisture control method does not influence the longevity of composite restorations in primary molars. Cotton roll isolation proved to be non-inferior to rubber dam isolation and is a viable option for restoring primary molars. Clinical trial registration registered NCT03733522 on 07/11/2018. The present trial was nested within another clinical trial, the CARies DEtection in Children (CARDEC-03-NCT03520309).

A systematic review of the quality and scope of decision modelling studies in child oral health research

Background

Decision analytic models are often used in economic evaluations to estimate long-term costs and effects of treatment which span beyond the time-frame of a clinical trial, therefore providing a better understanding of the long-term implications of decisions that conventional trial-based economic evaluations fail to provide. This is particularly relevant for considering oral health interventions in children as treatments may affect adult oral health. However, in the field of child oral health there has not been an evaluation of the quality and scope of decision analytical models which extend into adulthood. The aim of this review is to examine the scope and quality of decision modelling studies, with horizons extending into adulthood, within the field of child oral health.

Methods

The following databases were searched: NHS Economic Evaluation Database (CRD York), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Econlit. Full economic evaluations, in the field of child oral health, published after 1997 which included a decision model with a horizon that extended beyond the age of 18 years old were included. Included studies were appraised against the Drummond checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards by calibrated reviewers.

Results

Four hundred studies were identified, of which nine met the inclusion criteria. Of the nine, eight were cost-effectiveness models. The majority focussed on the prevention or management of dental caries. The mean percentage of applicable Drummond checklist criteria met by the studies in this review was 82% (median = 85%, range = 54–100%). Discounting of costs and performing an incremental analysis were noted as key methodological weaknesses. The mean percentage of applicable CHEERS criteria met by each study was 82% (median = 87%, range = 32–96%). Justifying the type of model, analytical methods used, and sources of funding were most commonly unreported.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of decision analytical models in the field of child oral health. Most of those that are available are of high methodological and reporting quality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01680-3.