At-home bleaching versus whitening toothpastes for treatment of tooth discoloration: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of whitening toothpastes and at-home bleaching for the treatment of tooth discoloration. METHODOLOGY: A cost-effectiveness economic analysis was conducted, and eight randomized clinical trials were selected based on the whitening agent product used: blue covarine dentifrices (BCD), hydrogen peroxide dentifrices (HPD), dentifrices without bleaching agents (CD, negative control), and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP10, positive control) for at-home bleaching. The consumer/patient perspective was adopted, macro-costing techniques were used and a decision tree model was performed considering the costs in the American and Brazilian markets. The color change evaluation (ΔE*ab) was used to calculate the effectiveness of tooth bleaching. A probabilistic analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were obtained. RESULTS: CP10 resulted in the highest cost-effectiveness compared to the use of dentifrices in both markets. In Brazil, HPD was more cost-effective than BCD and CD. In the US, the increased costs of HPD and BCD did not generate any whitening benefit compared to CD. CONCLUSIONS: CP10 was more cost-effective than BCD and HPD for tooth bleaching from the perspectives of the Brazilian and American markets. Decision-making should consider the use of CP10 for treating tooth discoloration.

At-home bleaching versus whitening toothpastes for treatment of tooth discoloration: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of whitening toothpastes and at-home bleaching for the treatment of tooth discoloration. Methodology A cost-effectiveness economic analysis was conducted, and eight randomized clinical trials were selected based on the whitening agent product used: blue covarine dentifrices (BCD), hydrogen peroxide dentifrices (HPD), dentifrices without bleaching agents (CD, negative control), and 10% carbamide peroxide (CP10, positive control) for at-home bleaching. The consumer/patient perspective was adopted, macro-costing techniques were used and a decision tree model was performed considering the costs in the American and Brazilian markets. The color change evaluation (ΔE*ab) was used to calculate the effectiveness of tooth bleaching. A probabilistic analysis was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were obtained. Results CP10 resulted in the highest cost-effectiveness compared to the use of dentifrices in both markets. In Brazil, HPD was more cost-effective than BCD and CD. In the US, the increased costs of HPD and BCD did not generate any whitening benefit compared to CD. Conclusions CP10 was more cost-effective than BCD and HPD for tooth bleaching from the perspectives of the Brazilian and American markets. Decision-making should consider the use of CP10 for treating tooth discoloration.

Oral health surveys of Traditional Peoples and Communities in Brazil: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review protocol is to map the available evidence regarding all the oral health surveys of Traditional Peoples and Communities (TPCs) in Brazil. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review question of the protocol is: 'What evidence is available on the oral health surveys of Traditional Peoples and Communities in Brazil?'. Observational studies that report oral health surveys of TPC in Brazil will be included. The protocol considered the Problem, Concept and Context strategy to guide data collection, as established by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search strategy will consider Medical Subject Headings terms, synonyms and relevant free terms about epidemiological surveys in oral health and TPC in Brazil, with no limits to data, language, subject or search type, in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE/PubMed), Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus, Web of Science and Embase. Bibliographic searches will be updated until June 2023. The selection will be carried out by two independent, blinded reviewers, following the eligibility criteria, based on the title and abstract identified in the initial search. Potentially eligible studies will be fully read to confirm eligibility and collect relevant information. The categorisation of the studies will consider the author and year of publication, the traditional group studied, the study design, geographic location, age group, sample size, data collection method and the main oral health problem evaluated and its outcome. The data obtained and extracted will be presented in table format and text and presented using the visualisation of similarities method. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The present study does not need ethical approval. The protocol title was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/BQ5J3). A final article will be prepared presenting the results of the scoping review, and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings of this review will be presented at national conferences and scientific meetings.

Economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for dental clinical practice during COVID-19 pandemic / Impacto econômico das novas recomendações de biossegurança para a prática clínica odontológica durante a pandemia da COVID-19

COVID-19 pandemic implied new biosafety recommendations to avoid dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 virus within healthcare centers. Changes on recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), decontamination protocols and organization of patient demand resulted may result in cost variation. Based on this, the present study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19. An Activity Based Costing evaluation was used to calculate the acquisition of PPE and decontamination solutions recommended for dental practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. PPE and decontamination solutions quantity and frequency of use were based on the newly COVID-19 recommendations. Costs (in Brazilian Real ­ R$) for biosafety recommendations pre- and post-COVID-19 were outlined and calculated for each patient, service shift and year. A sensitivity analysis considered 20% to 50% variation of direct costs. Previously to COVID-19 pandemic, direct costs of biosafety recommendations consisted of R$0.84 per patient, R$6.69 per service shift and R$3,413.94 per year. Post-COVID-19 costs of biosafety recommendations resulted in R$16.01 per patient, R$128.07 per service shift, and R$32,657.96 per year. Yearly costs can vary between R$26,126.37 and R$39,189.56. The annual budget increase necessary to adopt post-COVID biosafety recommendations was R$29,244.02. Newly biosafety recommendations increased significantly the costs of oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19 pandemic. Decision making of healthcare managers must consider rational and equity allocation of financial resources.

A pandemia da COVID-19 implicou novas recomendações de biossegurança para evitar a disseminação do vírus SARS-CoV-2 nos centros de saúde. Alterações nos equipamentos de proteção individual (EPI) recomendados, protocolos de descontaminação e organização da demanda de pacientes resultaram em variações de custos. Com base nisso, o presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o impacto econômico de novas recomendações de biossegurança para assistência à saúde bucal durante a COVID-19. Uma avaliação do Custeio Baseado em Atividade foi usada para calcular a aquisição de EPI e soluções de descontaminação recomendadas para a prática odontológica durante a pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. A quantidade e a frequência de uso de EPI e das soluções de descontaminação foram baseadas nas novas recomendações da COVID-19. Os custos (em Reais Brasileiros ­ R$) das recomendações de biossegurança pré- e pós-COVID-19 foram delineados e calculados para cada paciente, turno de serviço e ano. Uma análise de sensibilidade considerou uma variação de 20% a 50% dos custos diretos. Anteriormente à pandemia da COVID-19, os custos diretos das recomendações de biossegurança consistiam em R$0,84 por paciente, R$6,69 por turno de serviço e R$3.413,94 por ano. Os custos pós-COVID-19 das recomendações de biossegurança resultaram em R$16,01 por paciente, R$128,07 por turno de serviço e R$32.657,96 por ano. Os custos anuais podem variar entre R$26.126,37 e R$39.189,56. O aumento do orçamento anual necessário para adotar as recomendações de biossegurança pós-COVID foi de R$29.244,02. As novas recomendações de biossegurança aumentaram significativamente os custos da assistência à saúde bucal durante a pandemia da COVID-19. A tomada de decisão dos gerentes de saúde deve considerar a alocação racional e equitativa dos recursos financeiros.

Economic Impact of New Biosafety Recommendations for Dental Clinical Practice During COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract COVID-19 pandemic implied new biosafety recommendations to avoid dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 virus within healthcare centers. Changes on recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), decontamination protocols and organization of patient demand resulted may result in cost variation. Based on this, the present study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of new biosafety recommendations for oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19. An Activity Based Costing evaluation was used to calculate the acquisition of PPE and decontamination solutions recommended for dental practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. PPE and decontamination solutions quantity and frequency of use were based on the newly COVID-19 recommendations. Costs (in Brazilian Real - R$) for biosafety recommendations pre- and post-COVID-19 were outlined and calculated for each patient, service shift and year. A sensitivity analysis considered 20% variation of direct costs. Previously to COVID-19 pandemic, direct costs of biosafety recommendations consisted of R$0.84 per patient, R$6.69 per service shift and R$3,413.94 per year. Post-COVID-19 costs of biosafety recommendations resulted in R$16.01 per patient, R$128.07 per service shift, and R$32,657.96 per year. Yearly costs can vary between R$26,126.37 and R$39,189.56. The annual budget increase necessary to adopt post-COVID biosafety recommendations was R$29,244.02. Newly biosafety recommendations increased significantly the costs of oral healthcare assistance during COVID-19 pandemic. Decision making of healthcare managers must consider rational and equity allocation of financial resources.