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.

Retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement: a cost-effectiveness comparison of different strategies.

AIM: The comparative cost-effectiveness of retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement (FI) remains unclear. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments versus replacing them via implant-supported crowns (ISCs). METHODS: Using tooth-level Markov models, we followed a molar with FI degree I or II/III in a 50-year-old patient over his lifetime. Tooth-retaining periodontal treatments (scaling and root planing, flap debridement, root resection, guided-tissue regeneration, tunnelling) were compared with tooth replacement using ISCs. We analysed costs, time until first re-treatment and total time of tooth or implant retention. The model adopted a private payer perspective within German health care. Transition probabilities were calculated based on current evidence. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed, and robustness of the model and effects of heterogeneity assessed using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Despite requiring re-treatment later than other strategies, ISCs were the most costly therapy. Compared with most periodontal treatments, ISCs were retained for shorter time than natural teeth regardless of the degree of FI, the patients' age or risk profile (smoker/non-smoker). CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data and within its limitations, our study indicates that retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments might be more cost-effective than replacing them via ISCs. Changes in the underlying evidence or the setting might alter these results.

Root canal treatment in a population-based adult sample: differences in patient factors and types of teeth treated between endodontists and general dentists.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify in a population-based study the differences between general dentists and endodontists with regard to types of teeth treated, fees, and patient characteristics. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: The "Florida Dental Care Study" was a prospective cohort study using a representative baseline sample of 873 dentate adults. In-person interviews and clinical examinations were conducted at baseline, 24 months, and 48 months, with 6-monthly telephone interviews between those times. Dental record information was abstracted afterward. RESULTS: A total of 100 root canals were performed in participants during the study period. While generalists performed the majority of endodontic procedures in all teeth, the percentage of molars treated by endodontists was significantly higher than the percentage of anterior teeth and bicuspids treated by endodontists. Data on fees were available in 85 of the cases. The trend was for endodontists fees to be higher, but the difference in fees was statistically significant only for molars. There were no statistically significant differences between generalist and specialist patients with regard to income, fear of pain, and frustration from previous dental care. However, a significantly higher percentage of patients treated by endodontists had dental insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of teeth ultimately treated in this representative sample of a dentate population was small, results do suggest that endodontists' fees were higher, they performed a higher percentage of molar root canals, and their patients were more likely to have dental insurance, as compared to general dentists who did root canals.

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.