Falk Schwendicke1, Gerd Göstemeyer2. 1. Department for Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 2. Department for Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: gerd.goestemeyer@charite.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With a growing number of individuals retaining their teeth lifelong, often with periodontitis-induced root surface exposure, there is the need for cost-effective management strategies for root caries lesions. The present study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of root caries preventive treatments. METHODS: Patients were simulated over 10 years using a Markov model. Four treatments were compared: No treatment, daily 225-800ppm fluoride rinses, chlorhexidine (CHX) varnish (2×/year), silver diamine fluoride (SDF) varnish (2×/year). Data from a systematic review were submitted to network meta-analysis for inferring relative efficacies of treatments. The health outcome was years of teeth being free of root caries. A mixed public-private payer perspective within 2016 German healthcare was taken, with costs being estimated from fee item catalogues or based on market prices. Populations with different numbers of teeth and tooth-level risks were modelled. Monte-Carlo microsimulations, univariate- and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In populations with 16 teeth at risk and low tooth-level risk for root caries, providing no preventive treatment was least costly, but also least effective (130 Euro, 144 years). SDF ranked next, being more costly (180 Euro), but also more effective (151 years). Payers willing to invest 8.30 Euro per root caries-free tooth-year found SDF most cost-effective. CHX varnish and fluoride rinse were not cost-effective. In populations with more teeth and high tooth-level risk, SDF was the most effective and least costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Root caries preventive treatments (like SDF) are effective and might even be cost-saving in high risk populations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Application of SDF can be recommended as a cost-saving treatment for prevention of root caries in patients with high risk of root caries.
INTRODUCTION: With a growing number of individuals retaining their teeth lifelong, often with periodontitis-induced root surface exposure, there is the need for cost-effective management strategies for root caries lesions. The present study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of root caries preventive treatments. METHODS:Patients were simulated over 10 years using a Markov model. Four treatments were compared: No treatment, daily 225-800ppm fluoride rinses, chlorhexidine (CHX) varnish (2×/year), silver diamine fluoride (SDF) varnish (2×/year). Data from a systematic review were submitted to network meta-analysis for inferring relative efficacies of treatments. The health outcome was years of teeth being free of root caries. A mixed public-private payer perspective within 2016 German healthcare was taken, with costs being estimated from fee item catalogues or based on market prices. Populations with different numbers of teeth and tooth-level risks were modelled. Monte-Carlo microsimulations, univariate- and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In populations with 16 teeth at risk and low tooth-level risk for root caries, providing no preventive treatment was least costly, but also least effective (130 Euro, 144 years). SDF ranked next, being more costly (180 Euro), but also more effective (151 years). Payers willing to invest 8.30 Euro per root caries-free tooth-year found SDF most cost-effective. CHX varnish and fluoride rinse were not cost-effective. In populations with more teeth and high tooth-level risk, SDF was the most effective and least costly option. CONCLUSIONS: Root caries preventive treatments (like SDF) are effective and might even be cost-saving in high risk populations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Application of SDF can be recommended as a cost-saving treatment for prevention of root caries in patients with high risk of root caries.