A Goldman1, J E Frencken2, R G De Amorim2, S C Leal3. 1. Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dental Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: annieg@gwu.edu. 2. Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dental Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: When planning primary oral health care services the cost implications of adopting new intervention practices are important, especially in resource-strapped countries. Although on a trajectory to be phased-out, amalgam remains the standard of care in many countries. METHODS: Adopting a government perspective, this study compared the costs of performing amalgam and ART/high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations and the consequences of failed restorations over 3 years in suburban Brasilia, Brazil. Cost data were collected prospectively; cost estimates were developed for the study sample and a projection of 1000 single- and 1000 multiple-surface restorations per group. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted in TreeAge Pro. RESULTS: Results were mixed. For single-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC will cost US$51 per failure prevented, while for multiple-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC was cost-effective with a savings of US$11 compared to amalgam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) predicted amalgam would be cost-effective 49.2% of the time compared to HVGIC at 50.6% of the time at a willingness to pay threshold of US$237 per failure prevented. Personnel accounted for more than half the cost burden for both methods; instruments and supplies accounted for about one third. The per restoration cost to replace amalgam with HVGIC ranges from US$1 to a savings of US$0.84. CONCLUSION: Replacing amalgam with a high-viscosity glass-ionomer as part of the ART method comes at a minimal increase in cost for governments. Increasing the number of restorations seems to diminish the cost burden. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ART/HVGIC could be considered a viable alternative to amalgam in primary teeth.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: When planning primary oral health care services the cost implications of adopting new intervention practices are important, especially in resource-strapped countries. Although on a trajectory to be phased-out, amalgam remains the standard of care in many countries. METHODS: Adopting a government perspective, this study compared the costs of performing amalgam and ART/high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations and the consequences of failed restorations over 3 years in suburban Brasilia, Brazil. Cost data were collected prospectively; cost estimates were developed for the study sample and a projection of 1000 single- and 1000 multiple-surface restorations per group. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted in TreeAge Pro. RESULTS: Results were mixed. For single-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC will cost US$51 per failure prevented, while for multiple-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC was cost-effective with a savings of US$11 compared to amalgam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) predicted amalgam would be cost-effective 49.2% of the time compared to HVGIC at 50.6% of the time at a willingness to pay threshold of US$237 per failure prevented. Personnel accounted for more than half the cost burden for both methods; instruments and supplies accounted for about one third. The per restoration cost to replace amalgam with HVGIC ranges from US$1 to a savings of US$0.84. CONCLUSION: Replacing amalgam with a high-viscosity glass-ionomer as part of the ART method comes at a minimal increase in cost for governments. Increasing the number of restorations seems to diminish the cost burden. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ART/HVGIC could be considered a viable alternative to amalgam in primary teeth.