Cost-effectiveness of pulp capping and root canal treatment of young permanent teeth.

OBJECTIVE: To contribute with information on cost-effectiveness of pulp capping and root canal treatment of posterior permanent vital teeth in children and adolescents with pulp exposures due to caries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness by means of a Markov simulation model was studied in a Scandinavian setting. In a simulated 12-year-old patient, treatment of pulpal exposure of a permanent tooth, either by the initial treatment pulp capping or root canal treatment, was followed for 9 years until the patient was 21. The model was based on outcome data obtained from published literature and cost data based on reference prices. RESULTS: In the simulated case, with the annual failure probalility (AFP) of 0.034 for pulp capping, the total cost for an initial treatment with pulp capping and any anticipated following treatments during the 9 years, was 367 EUR lower than for a root canal treatment as the initial treatment. After an initial treatment with pulp capping 10.4% fewer teeth, compared with initial root canal treatment, were anticipated to be extracted. Pulp capping was thus considered to be the cost-effective alternative. The sensitivity analyses showed that the AFP of a tooth requiring a root canal treatment after an initial pulp capping needed to be 0.2 before root canal treatment may be considered being the cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This model analysis indicated initial treatment by pulp capping to be cost-effective compared to root canal treatment in children and adolescents with pulp exposures due to caries.

Direct pulp capping after a carious exposure versus root canal treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Excavation of deep caries often leads to pulpal exposure even in teeth with sensible, nonsymptomatic pulps. Although direct pulp capping (DPC) aims to maintain pulpal health, it frequently requires follow-up treatments like root canal treatment (RCT), which could have been performed immediately after the exposure, with possibly improved outcomes. We quantified and compared the long-term cost-effectiveness of both strategies. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed following a molar with an occlusally located exposure of a sensible, nonsymptomatic pulp in a 20-year-old male patient over his lifetime. Transition probabilities or hazard functions were estimated based on systematically and nonsystematically assessed literature. Costs were estimated based on German health care, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed using Monte Carlo microsimulations. RESULTS: Despite requiring follow-up treatments significantly earlier, teeth treated by DPC were retained for long periods of time (52 years) at significantly reduced lifetime costs (545 vs 701 Euro) compared with teeth treated by RCT. For teeth with proximal instead of occlusal exposures or teeth in patients >50 years of age, this cost-effectiveness ranking was reversed. Although sensitivity analyses found substantial uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of both strategies, DPC was usually found to be less costly than RCT. CONCLUSIONS: We found both DPC and RCT suitable to treat exposed vital, nonsymptomatic pulps. DPC was more cost-effective in younger patients and for occlusal exposure sites, whereas RCT was more effective in older patients or teeth with proximal exposures. These findings might change depending on the health care system and underlying literature-based probabilities.