Cost-effectiveness of orthodontics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluation is a methodology to maximize health benefits and minimize opportunity costs and is of increasing importance in informing resource allocation decisions in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess the availability and quality of economic evaluations of any orthodontic interventions and summarize the conclusions of these studies. SEARCH METHODS: A thorough search of the literature was carried out including terms related to orthodontic interventions and economic evaluation between January 2000 and February 2022. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Cochrane were searched. Grey literature was searched and further hand-searching was performed on the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies on cleft lip and palate surgery and sleep apnoea were excluded due to the multi-disciplinary nature of these conditions which might alter the applicability of the result to orthodontic interventions. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was carried out through full text analysis of included studies by two authors. The quality of each study was assessed according to the Drummond 10-point Checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Quality Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. Characteristics and conclusions of included articles were descriptively summarized. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most of the included articles were trial-based studies, with only one model-based study. Orthodontic interventions assessed included crossbite correction, functional appliance treatment and orthognathic surgery. Most studies were carried out in Europe and specifically in Sweden. The quality of included studies was generally low with 69% of studies reported as having serious limitations according to the NICE Checklist. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted a lack of economic evaluations for orthodontic interventions, and limitations of existing economic evaluations. Recommendations on future research are provided. REGISTRATION: The protocol for the systematic review was registered on the NIHR Database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42021220419).

The value of adult orthodontics: Do the public's willingness-to-pay values reflect the profession's?

OBJECTIVE: To explore how the public and dental professionals would value an orthodontic service for adults by eliciting their willingness-to-pay (WTP), a standardised health economics technique which quantifies 'strength of preference' in monetary terms. Despite increasing demand, adults in the UK are only eligible for NHS orthodontic treatment if there is severe dental health or complex multidisciplinary need. Orthodontic services are provided to children aged under 18 years who are eligible by their Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) score. Consequently, many adults who may have a need for treatment as determined by IOTN are unable to access this service. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General dental practices in North East England and national specialists approached through the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). PARTICIPANTS: Public participants were recruited from general dental practices. Dentists were recruited from local dental lists and members of the BOS. METHODS: Participants were asked if they would be willing to pay to see an orthodontic service extended to all adults in England with a qualifying IOTN. Clinical photographs of three malocclusions were presented and maximum WTP in additional tax per household per year was elicited using shuffled payment cards. RESULTS: A total of 205 dentists and 206 public participants were recruited. Pairwise tests showed a statistically significant difference in WTP between the public and professionals for all malocclusions, with the public giving higher valuations. In both groups, the Class III scenario elicited a higher WTP than the class I or II malocclusion. However, when all other factors were controlled for using a regression analysis, the group (public or profession) and the other variables did not significantly influence WTP. CONCLUSION: The public and professionals were willing to pay for an adult orthodontic service. Due to this variability and unpredictability the allocation of healthcare resources will remain contentious.

Young Adults' Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Invasive and Non-invasive Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment: A Comparative Study.

To evaluate the preference of young adult patients and their willingness to pay for the different approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from September to December 2019. Young adult orthodontic patients from 18 to 45 years old were interviewed via online survey regarding their perception to the extent of treatment, acceptability of non-invasive (customized appliances and medications) and invasive (surgery) approaches accessible to accelerate orthodontic treatment and increase in fees they were willing to pay. Statistical analyses were performed, and gender difference was calculated at P < .05. There are 100 respondents: 70% aged between 18 to 25, 50% male, and 56% with annual income <10 000 SR. About 72% of the respondents decided that treatment takes longer period and 51% wished it would last for less than 6 months. Customized appliances were reported to be the most convenient to use (58%) and to pay (44%), followed by medications (48%). On the other hand, surgery was reported to be the most inconvenient to use (58%) and to pay for (55%). About 70% of the respondents were unwilling to pay more than 10% to 20% for all procedures assessed; considerable variation was not observed in responses between gender at 95% confidence level. Majority of the respondents believed that orthodontic treatment is taking lengthy duration. Less invasive, nonsurgical techniques and procedures were more preferred. Likewise, financial factors play vital role in the selection of their preferred approach. Most of them agrees to provide up to 20% increment of the fee for additional procedures.

Surviving orthodontic graduate debt: Making correct career choices to manage debt re-payment, reduction or forgiveness.

Monetary pitfalls and traps await unwary residents upon graduation. The path to a financially satisfying personal and professional life is obtainable despite high student loan debt and limited income. Career and personal finance issues, student loan options, tax avoidance, bank lending policies, and practice purchases are reviewed. Career options of public service, salaried employee, per diem employee, and private practice ownership are compared in personal financial outcomes, taxation, and retirement consequences.

Cleft and Craniofacial Team Orthodontic Care in the United States: A Survey of the ACPA.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the capacity for orthodontic care, service features, and finances among members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: ACPA-approved multidisciplinary cleft teams. PARTICIPANTS: Cleft team coordinators. INTERVENTIONS: Coordinators were asked to complete the survey working together with their orthodontists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Model for orthodontic care. RESULTS: Coordinators from 82 out of 167 teams certified by ACPA completed the survey (response rate = 49.1%). Most orthodontists were private practice volunteers (48%) followed by university/hospital employed (22.8%). Care was often delivered in community private practice facilities (44.2%) or combination of university and private practice facilities (39.0%). Half of teams reported offering presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO), with nasoalveolar molding being the most common. Cleft/craniofacial patients typically comprise 25% or less of the orthodontists' practices. The presence of a university/hospital-based orthodontist was associated with higher rates of offering PSIO (P < .001) and an increased percentage dedication of their practice to cleft/craniofacial care (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Orthodontic models across ACPA-certified teams are highly varied. The employment of full-time craniofacial orthodontists is less common but is highly correlated with a practice with a high percentage of cleft care and the offering of advanced services such as PSIO. Future work should focus on how to effectively promote such roles for orthodontists to ensure high-level care for cleft/craniofacial patients requiring treatment from infancy through skeletal maturity.

Socioeconomic disparities in orthodontic treatment outcomes and expenditure on orthodontics in England's state-funded National Health Service: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess whether there are potential areas for efficiency improvements in the National Health Service (NHS) orthodontic service in North West England and to assess the socioeconomic status (SES)-related equity of the outcomes achieved by the NHS. METHODS: The study involved a retrospective analysis of 2008-2012 administrative data, and the study population comprised patients aged ≥10 who started NHS primary care orthodontic treatment in North West England in 2008. The proportions of treatments that were discontinued early and ended with residual need (based on post-treatment Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need [IOTN] scores that met or exceeded the NHS eligibility threshold of 3.6) and the associated NHS expenditure were calculated. In addition, the associations with SES were investigated using linear probability models. RESULTS: We found that 7.6% of treatments resulted in discontinuation (which was associated with an NHS annual expenditure of £2.3 m), and a further 19.4% (£5.9 m) had a missing outcome record. Furthermore, 5.2% of treatments resulted in residual need (£1.6 m), and a further 38.3% (£11.6 m) had missing IOTN data (due to either a missing outcome record or an incomplete IOTN outcome field in the record), which led to an annual NHS expenditure of £13.2 m (44% of the total expenditure) on treatments that are a potential source of inefficiency. Compared to the patients in the highest SES group, those in the lower SES groups were more likely both to discontinue treatment and to have residual need on treatment completion. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial inefficiencies were evident in the NHS orthodontic service, with 7.6% of treatments ending in discontinuation (£2.3 m) and 5.2% ending with residual need (£1.6 m). Over a third of cases had unreported IOTN outcome scores, which highlights the need to improve the outcome monitoring systems. In addition, the SES gradients indicate inequity in the orthodontic outcomes, with children from disadvantaged communities having poorer outcomes compared to their more affluent peers.

Annual Report on Children's Health Care: Dental and Orthodontic Utilization and Expenditures for Children, 2010-2012.

OBJECTIVE: To examine general dental and orthodontic utilization and expenditures by health insurance status, public health insurance eligibility, and sociodemographic characteristics among children aged 0 to 17 years using data from 2010-2012. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2010-2012) provided data on insurance status, public health insurance eligibility, and visits to dental providers for both general dental care and orthodontic care. RESULTS: Overall, 41.9% of US children reported an annual dental office-based visit for general (nonorthodontic) dental care. Fewer Hispanic (34.7%) and non-Latino black children (34.8%) received dental care compared to non-Hispanic whites (47.3%) and Asians (40.3%). Children living in families with the lowest income were also the least likely to have a visit (32.9%) compared to children in the highest-income families (54.7%). Among children eligible for public coverage, Medicaid-eligible children had the lowest percentage of preventive dental visits (29.2%). Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in use and expenditures for orthodontic care are much greater than those for general and preventive dental care. Average expenditures for orthodontic care were $1,823, of which 56% ($1,023) was paid out of pocket by families. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a baseline assessment for examining trends in the future, especially as coverage patterns for children may change as the Affordable Care Act is implemented and the future of the State Child Health Insurance Program remains uncertain beyond 2017.

Health economic evaluations in orthodontics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation is assuming increasing importance as an integral component of health services research. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of the literature and assess the evidence from studies presenting orthodontic treatment outcomes and the related costs. MATERIALS/METHODS: The literature review was conducted in four steps, according to Goodman's model, in order to identify all studies evaluating economic aspects of orthodontic interventions. The search covered the databases Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and SCOPUS, for the period from 1966 to September 2014. The inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing at least two different orthodontic interventions, evaluation of both economic and orthodontic outcomes, and study populations of all ages. The quality of each included study was assessed as limited, moderate, or high. The overall evidence was assessed according to the GRADE system (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: The applied terms for searches yielded 1838 studies, of which 989 were excluded as duplicates. Application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified 26 eligible studies for which the full-text versions were retrieved and scrutinized. At the final analysis, eight studies remained. Three studies were based on cost-effectiveness analyses and the other five on cost-minimization analysis. Two of the cost-minimization studies included a societal perspective, i.e. the sum of direct and indirect costs. The aims of most of the studies varied widely and of studies comparing equivalent treatment methods, few were of sufficiently high study quality. Thus, the literature to date provides an inadequate evidence base for economic aspects of orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION: This systematic review disclosed that few orthodontic studies have presented both economic and clinical outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence available about the health economics of orthodontic interventions. Further investigation is warranted.