[Economic evaluation of treatments under dental general anesthesia and protective stabilization].

Objective: To conduct economic evaluation of treatments under dental general anesthesia (DGA) and protective stabilization (PS), in order to compare the cost and the final therapeutic effect of these two treatments. Methods: Retrospectively studied twenty-six 2 to 4 years old patients treated under DGA and twenty-seven treated under PS in the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology. The general information, treatment information and total treatment cost information of patients were collected. The cost and cost-survival time ratio of the two groups were compared in units of people and tooth respectively. When compared in unit of people, patients were divided into two groups depending on the number of teeth treated, when compared in unit of tooth, teeth were divided into two groups depending on the treatment received, i.e. restoration or root canal treatment. In addition, we recalculated and compared two groups under the assumption that the treatment charges of DGA was consistent with common outpatient charges. Results: The tooth average cost and cost-survival time ratio of each patient in DGA group which were [(1 133.87±87.37) yuan] and [3.51 (1.30, 5.72) yuan/d] respectively were significantly higher than those in PS group which were [(303.81±155.34) yuan] and [1.54 (0.95, 2.13) yuan/d] respectively (P<0.01). The number of teeth and the way of treatments wouldn't change the result. The recalculated result of the cost-survival time ratio of each patient in DGA group [1.63 (0.72, 2.55) yuan/d] and PS group [1.54 (0.95, 2.13) yuan/d] showed no significant difference (P=0.455). Conclusions: Patients treated in Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology showed a significant higher cost and cost-survival time radio in DGA group than that in PS group. If the treatment charges of DGA group was consistent with common outpatient charges, PS group will no longer have economic advantage.

Minimally-invasive dental anesthesia: Patients' preferences and analysis of the willingness-to-pay index.

AIM: The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate the impact of a computer-controlled anesthesia on patients' comfort and to investigate, through the willingness-to-pay (WTP) index, and patients' acceptance of this new technology. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing a class I or II restorative procedure were enrolled. A computer-controlled device for anesthetic delivery was utilized, and a questionnaire on the level of discomfort and WTP was given to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 86% of participants declared less discomfort than that perceived during their last traditional procedure for pain control; 58% of patients were willing to pay an additional fee for a modern anesthesia technique, with a median WTP value of 20$. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-controlled systems for local anesthesia represent a relevant tool for reducing patients' discomfort during dental treatment. The WTP index helps to quantify its relevance.

Exploring the potential value of using data on dental extractions under general anaesthesia (DGA) to monitor the impact of dental decay in children.

Aim To explore the value of DGA data as an indicator of the impact and inequalities associated with child dental decay (caries) in Southampton.Design Data from the local DGA provider in Southampton was used to investigate trends in child (17 years and under) DGAs between 2006/7 and 2014/15. Retrospective analysis of anonymised child-level 2013/14 and 2014/15 data from the same service was carried out to identify any inequalities with respect to deprivation, impact on school attendance and cost to the health economy.Results Around 400-500 Southampton children needed a DGA annually within this period. There were year-on-year variations, but no upward or downward trend. The DGA rate was 2.5 to three times higher in the most deprived quintile compared to the least. This translates to an equivalent gap in school absences, which could impact on educational achievement. The cost of these procedures in 2014/15 was around £210,000.Conclusions DGA data have value in highlighting the impact and inequalities associated with dental decay on children and the wider economy. Nationally, they could be used for benchmarking. Locally, these data could be used to target and evaluate health improvement programmes as well as to highlight DGA service changes that would disproportionately affect children from more deprived backgrounds.

Comparing the Efficiencies of Third Molar Surgeries With and Without a Dentist Anesthesiologist.

Two different anesthesia models were compared in terms of surgical duration, safer outcomes, and economic implications. Third molar surgeries performed with and without a separate dentist anesthesiologist were evaluated by a retrospective data analysis of the surgical operative times. For more difficult surgeries, substantially shorter operative times were observed with the dentist anesthesiologist model, leading to a more favorable surgical outcome. An example calculation is presented to demonstrate economic advantages of scheduling the participation of a dentist anesthesiologist for more difficult surgeries.

A retrospective investigation of the oral health records of a cohort of preschool children who received extractions under general anaesthesia including cost analysis of treatment.

Internationally, a considerable proportion of children aged five years and younger require extraction of teeth due to dental caries and frequently dental general anaesthesia (DGA) is the treatment of choice. AIMS: To investigate the records of a cohort of preschool children (aged five years and younger) referred to the public dental service provided at Cork University Hospital (CUH), Cork, Ireland, for extractions under DGA between the years 2000 and 2002. To determine the characteristics of the sample: disadvantage; the presence of a significant medical history; and, fluoride status. To establish the pattern of appointments and care, before, during and after DGA, and the pattern of dental treatment required up to sixth class (aged 11 to 12 years). METHODS: A retrospective review of dental records of a cohort of preschool-aged children referred for DGA in CUH during the years 2000-2002 was completed. Demographic and clinical data were collated and analysed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). Costs were provided by CUH and the Health Service Executive (HSE). Data on costs relating to preventive programmes were obtained from information presented in the Irish Oral Health Services Guideline Initiative 2009. RESULTS: A total of 347 children were included with a median age of.fQur years and a range of one to five years. Children with a disadvantage were more likely to require extractions under DGA than their- counterparts (50%, n=175). In total, 73% (n=253)~ of patients had a fluoridated water supply and 91% (n=316) had no adverse medical history. For 88% (n=306), their first dental visit was an emergency appointment. The primary indication for DGA was treatment of dental caries. A recall appointment was provided for 18% (n=63). One-quarter (n=86) required an extraction, antibiotic or referral for a second DGA at their first visit following DGA. In first class, referral for a second DGA or extraction under local anaesthetic (LA) was required for 23% (n=79) of patients. Over 60% (n=21 1) required either an extraction or a restoration in third class. In excess of 20% (n=69) of patients did not attend the sixth class dental inspection, the final assessment appointment in the public services. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of preschool children require extractions under DGA due to dental caries. The results of this study indicate that such children progress to adolescence with poor oral health, as evidenced by the need for further restorations, extractions and repeat DGA. The average cost of DGA was E819 per child. This figure has been shown to be as much as eight times the cost of a preventive/oral health promotion prograrnme operating within a similar cohort. An integrated preventive programme targeting preschool-aged children should be considered in attempting to manage the hicih levels of dental caries within this age group.

Dental Treatment and Expenditures Under General Anesthesia Among Medicaid-Enrolled Children in North Carolina.

PURPOSE: Many studies reporting dental utilization under general anesthesia (GA) are dated. The purpose of this study was to provide contemporaneous data about children receiving dental GA by: (1) determining trends in utilization and associated expenditures; and (2) examining the effects of provider distribution. METHODS: This time series cross-sectional study of Medicaid-eligible children ages zero to eight years old in North Carolina used aggregate Medicaid claims from State Fiscal Years (SFY) 2011 to 2015 to collect demographic and dental treatment information. Descriptive statistics were stratified by age and year to examine trends over time. Panel analysis techniques were used to explore regional effects of provider distribution on dental GA utilization. RESULTS: For SFY 2011 to 2015, the overall dental utilization rate was 517.1 per 1,000 (total enrolled equals 632,941 children/year), and the dental GA utilization rate was 15.8 per 1,000. Total dental expenditures averaged $113 million per year, and dental GA averaged $16.7 million per year. The dental GA proportion of expenditures increased over time (P<.001). Provider distribution did not affect dental GA utilization rate (P=.178) but did increase the number of children receiving dental GA (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization and expenditures associated with dental treatment under general anesthesia continue to increase. While this reflects increased access to care, interventions should be examined to provide preventive care earlier in a child's life.

An audit into the reasons why treatment was not completed as planned under intravenous sedation in an adult oral surgery department, and the cost implications.

This audit aimed to identify the prevalence of, and reasons for failed intravenous conscious sedation in an adult oral surgery department, to develop recommendations to reduce such failures and to identify any cost implications. Data were collected prospectively for three months for all intravenous sedation appointments in the Oral Surgery department. Data were collected for 109 sedation appointments of which 83 were successful (76%). The failure rate (24%) was higher than the acceptable departmental failure rate (10%), and included reasons for failure that should have been avoided by a thorough patient assessment prior to treatment. Of the 26 failures, the most common reasons for failure were: cancellation: 8 patients (30.8%), failure to attend: 6 patients (23.1%), excessively late arrival of patient: 4 patients (15.4%) and failure to cannulate: 3 patients (11.6%). When sedation was unsuccessful, 13 of the 26 patients (50%) had their treatment successfully completed under local anaesthesia alone, 10 patients (38%) were rebooked for sedation and 3 patient. (12%) were rebooked for a general anaesthetic. Identifying and correcting the reasons for failure can result in vast savings in appointment time, clinical resources and cost. That 13 patients subsequently had their treatment completed under local anaesthesia alone opens the debate on how rigorous the patient assessment and allocation of sedation appointments was, and the potential to achieve savings.

Insurers' policies on coverage for behavior management services and the impact of the Affordable Care Act.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on dental insurance coverage for behavior management services depends upon the child's source of insurance (Medicaid, CHIP, private commercial) and the policies that govern each such source. This contribution describes historical and projected sources of pediatric dental coverage, catalogues the seven behavior codes used by dentists, compares how often they are billed by pediatric and general dentists, assesses payment policies and practices for behavioral services across coverage sources, and describes how ACA coverage policies may impact each source. Differences between Congressional intent to ensure comprehensive oral health services with meaningful consumer protections for all legal-resident children and regulatory action by the Departments of Treasury and Health and Human Services are explored to explain how regulations fail to meet Congressional intent as of 2014. The ACA may additionally impact pediatric dentistry practice, including dentists' behavior management services, by expanding pediatric dental training and safety net delivery sites and by stimulating the evolution of novel payment and delivery systems designed to move provider incentives away from procedure-based payments and toward health outcome-based payments.

Comparison of propofol-remifentanil versus propofol-ketamine deep sedation for third molar surgery.

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 µg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 µg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 µg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

What costs are associated with the management of third molars?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the treatment costs directly related to operative and nonoperative management of asymptomatic, disease-free, third molar (M3) teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data reviewed were limited to claims submitted by oral and maxillofacial surgeons. The data collected included charges for consultations, radiographs, surgical removal of bony impacted teeth, and general anesthesia, using the 2009 data extracts from Delta Dental of Virginia. The median charges were used as a proxy for the actual costs attributable to the removal or retention of M3 teeth. Three clinical scenarios were executed using the available claims data to calculate the treatment costs associated with nonoperative and operative M3 management. An assumption made in the computation of expenses was that for subjects who elected to retain their M3s, the recommended management strategy was active surveillance. Active surveillance is a prescribed treatment to monitor the retained M3s characterized by performing a clinical examination and panoramic imaging every 2 years. The author assumed a 3% increase in charges per annum. RESULTS: The 3 scenarios were as follows: scenario 1 (nonoperative management), retention of asymptomatic, disease-free M3s and monitoring for 20 years from age 18 to 38 years; scenario 2 (operative management), removal of 2 asymptomatic, disease-free, bony impacted M3s for 18-year-old patients using general anesthesia (30 minutes) in an office-based ambulatory setting; and scenario 3 (failure of non-operative management), removal of 1 previously asymptomatic, disease-free, bony impacted M3 after 10 years of follow-up in a now 28-year-old patient using general anesthesia (30 minutes) in an office-based ambulatory setting. The estimated charges for managing M3s were $2,342, $1,184, and $1,997 for scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified financial analysis derived from the dental claims data suggests that during the course of the patient's lifetime, the charges associated with non-operative management of asymptomatic, disease-free M3s will exceed the charges of operative management. The difference in costs might be important to patients when choosing between operative and non-operative management of their M3s.

Retrospective audit of Taranaki children undergoing dental care under general anaesthetic from 2001 to 2005.

A retrospective audit of trends in day-stay treatment for dental caries at a New Zealand hospital dental unit showed that demand for treatment has risen. The annual number of children undergoing a GA increased by over 13%, although the average waiting time after the initial consultation decreased. The cost of treatment also dramatically increased with time, as the numbers and complexity of cases increased. The type of treatment under GA changed over the five years, with more extractions occurring over the course of the audit. Restorations were still the most common treatment item provided, although the use of SSC trebled in 2004 and 2005. Socio-economic status, sex and ethnic differences were observed, with more boys and Maori receiving GA care and having a higher number of extractions. These children were identified as being high users of other hospital services (such as the Emergency Department).

A comparison of the 'cost per child treated' at a primary care-based sedation referral service, compared to a general anaesthetic in hospital.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dental sedation techniques used in the treatment of children, focusing on hospital-based dental general anaesthetic (DGA) and advanced conscious sedation in a controlled primary care environment. METHODS: Data on fees, costs and treatment pathways were obtained from a primary care clinic specialising in advanced sedation techniques. For the hospital-based DGA cohort, data were gathered from hospital trusts in the same area. Comparison was via an average cost per child treated and subsequent sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Analysing records spanning one year, the average cost per child treated via advanced conscious sedation was pound245.47. As some treatments fail (3.5% of cases attempted), and the technique is not deemed suitable for all patients (4-5%), DGA is still required and has been factored into this cost. DGA has an average cost per case treated of pound359.91, 46.6% more expensive than advanced conscious sedation. These cost savings were robust to plausible variation in all parameters. CONCLUSION: The costs of advanced conscious sedation techniques, applied in a controlled primary care environment, are substantially lower than the equivalent costs of hospital-based DGA, informing the debate about the optimum way of managing this patient group.

Office-based dental rehabilitation in children with special healthcare needs using a pediatric sedation service model.

PURPOSE: 1) To review our experience with office-based sedation/anesthesia for children with special healthcare needs who underwent dental rehabilitation at our institution. 2) To compare the cost to comparable patients who underwent similar procedures in the operating room. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients' medical records and the sedation service database. Group CL: 114 patients who underwent office-based dental rehabilitation (135 procedures). Group OR: 23 patients who underwent dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia in the operating room for cost comparison. OUTCOMES: 1) EFFICACY (procedure completion rate and unplanned admissions); 2) SAFETY (complications and interventions); 3) Comparison of mean hospital charges billed between groups. RESULTS: Demographics were similar in both groups. The most common specific underlying diagnoses were autism (38%), cerebral palsy/developmental delay (18%) and ADHD (4%) in both groups. EFFICACY: procedure completion rate was 98.5% (2 aborted). There was 1 (0.7%) unplanned postanesthetic care unit admission due to an adverse drug event. SAFETY: 2 (1.5%) patients required invasive airway control. Eighteen (13.3%) patients developed transient hypoxemia. Twenty-three (17%) patients had airway obstruction needing simple intervention, and 1 (0.7%) patient had hypotension. There were no serious complications. Cost: mean total hospital charges were considerably higher in group OR ($6,126), versus group CL ($1,277), even after adjustment for inflation and length of procedure (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Office-based dental rehabilitation using a pediatric sedation service model in children with special needs is efficient, and can achieve average savings of $4,849 in hospital charges per patient.

A comparison of costs in providing dental care for special needs patients under sedation or general anaesthesia in the North East of England.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of providing dental treatment under general anaesthesia or sedation for special needs patients. METHODS: After a Delphi exercise, a questionnaire was designed, piloted and then sent to nine NHS Trust dental service managers, within the Salaried Dental Services in the North East of England, to obtain information on the costs incurred during the treatment of special needs patients using sedation or general anaesthesia. The questionnaire related to the average number of such patients treated per session, staff costs, depreciation cost for buildings and equipment, and overhead costs including consumables and drugs. RESULTS: All nine dental service managers returned completed questionnaires. The all-inclusive cost for treatment per patient under general anaesthesia ranged from 203.65-479.50 pounds (mean cost: 285.79 pounds) and for sedation from 57.60-153.50 pounds (mean cost: 90.81 pounds). On average three special needs patients were treated per session. The greatest variation in the costs for general anaesthesia was due to staffing costs, which ranged from 1064.10 to 350.00 pounds per session across the Trusts. CONCLUSIONS: In the small number of centres sampled, the cost of delivering dental care under sedation or general anaesthesia was shown to vary widely. Overall, the mean cost of sedation was one-third that of general anaesthesia. However, the cost of both was substantial and cognisance needs to be taken of the costs of such services.