| Literature DB >> 31158253 |
Fadil Elamin1,2, Nihal Abdelazeem2, Isra Salah2, Yousra Mirghani2, Ferranti Wong1.
Abstract
Despite the high success rates of preformed metal crowns (PMCs) in children no randomized clinical trials compare methods of placement and none describe its use in Africa. Our aim was to compare survival and cost-effectiveness of PMCs placed by conventional techniques (CT) and biological Hall techniques (HT) using a prospective randomized control trial in a general dental practice from Khartoum. One hundred and nine and 103 PMCs were placed in randomly selected children (5-8years) with 1-2 carious primary molars using HT and CT respectively and followed for 2 years. Socioeconomic status, periodontal health, occlusion, anxiety, and procedure time were compared using student t-test. Kaplan-Meier survival rates and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were compared between CT and HT. CT and HT groups were similar for age, gender, socio-economic status. Survival rates were high (over 90%) for both study arms and not statistically different (p>0.05). Anxiety scores were significantly higher in CT arm after 12 months compared to HT (p<0.001). Clinically, gingival and plaque indices were similar between groups (p>0.05) but occlusions were raised in nearly all subjects in the HT arm (p<0.05). Periodontal health improved, and occlusions adjusted over time in both arms. There were 3 (2.7%) and 6 (5.8%) minor failures, 7 (6.4%) and 6 (5.8%) major failures in HT and CT arms respectively. Mean procedure time was lower in HT (9.1 min) than CT (33.9 min); p<0.001. Mean PMC cost was US$2.45 and US$7.81 for HT and CT respectively. The ICER was US$136.56 more for each PMC placed by CT per life year. We show that PMCs have high survival outcomes in disadvantaged populations similar to results from developed countries. As HT can be carried out by less experienced dental operators and therapists, this biological approach provides a promising cost-effective option to manage caries in developing countries with limited resources. Trial registration: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov. ClinicalTrial.gov Trial Registration: NCT03640013.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31158253 PMCID: PMC6546341 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217740
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CONSORT flow diagram.
Fig 2Distribution of the types of teeth treated in both groups (FDI notation).
Descriptive parameters describing each arm of the randomized clinical trial.
| HT (N = 109) | CT (N = 103) | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (yrs) | 6.89 | 6.58 | NS | |
| Sex N (%) | Male | 54 (49.5%) | 53 (51.5%) | NS |
| Female | 55 (50.5%) | 50 (48.5%) | NS | |
| SES | Medium | 19 (17.4%) | 16 (15.5%) | NS |
| Low | 90 (82.6%) | 87 (84.5%) | NS | |
| Caries | dmft | 6.08 (3.06) | 6.33 (2.02) | NS |
| Occlusal | 11 (10.0%) | 7 (7.0%) | NS | |
| Approximal | 98 (90.0%) | 96 (93.0%) | NS | |
| Mean procedure time in minutes (SD) | 9.10 | 33.91 | <0.001 | |
| Survival rate at 24 months (%) | 102 (93.6%) | 97 (94.1%) | NS | |
| Minor failures | 3 (2.7%) | 6 (5.8%) | <0.05 | |
| Major failures | 7 (6.4%) | 6 (5.8%) | NS | |
| Pulp exposure during carious tissue removal | 0 | 2 | - | |
| Dropout rate (%) | 6 months | 4 (3.7%) | 4 (3.9%) | NS |
| 12 months | 5 (4.6%) | 8 (7.8%) | ||
| 18 months | 14 (12.8%) | 13 (12.6%) | ||
| 24 months | 25 (22.9%) | 22 (21.4%) | ||
| Immediate postoperative complications (Lip biting, allergy, incorrect placement) | 2 (1.8%) | 4 (3.9%) | NS | |
| Tooth exfoliation | 2 (1.8%) | 1 (0.9%) | NS |
HT, Hall technique; CT, conventional technique; SES, socioeconomic status; dmft, decayed missing filled teeth; SD, standard deviation
a, student t-test
b, Fisher’s exact test; p>0.05 considered significant; NS, not significant.
Anxiety scores for the two groups using facial image scale.
| FIS | HT | CT | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.63 | NS |
| 2 | 20 | 26 | |||
| 3 | 34 | 28 | |||
| 4 | 31 | 26 | |||
| 5 | 23 | 23 | |||
| Immediate post-op | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21.94 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 43 | 44 | |||
| 3 | 64 | 39 | |||
| 4 | 1 | 8 | |||
| 5 | 0 | 11 | |||
| 12 months post-op | 1 | 24 | 0 | 52.94 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 18 | 12 | |||
| 3 | 26 | 7 | |||
| 4 | 21 | 47 | |||
| 5 | 15 | 33 |
FIS, Facial image score ranging from 1 = very happy to 5 = very unhappy; HT, Hall technique; CT, conventional technique; p>0.05 considered significant; NS, not significant.
Fig 3Kaplan-Meier survival function of PMCs for Hall technique (HT) and conventional technique (CT).
Assessment of periodontal health using the modified plaque index (Löe 1967), gingival index (Löe et al. 1972) and occlusion across time.
| HT | CT | Pearson Chi-squared test | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Months | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 0 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | p value | ||
| Plaque Index | 0 | 48 (44.0%) | 66 (62.9%) | 69 (66.3%) | 71 (74.7%) | 69 (82.1%) | 55 (53.4%) | 61 (61.6%) | 66(69.5%) | 64(71.1%) | 61 (75.3%) | 1.12 (3) | NS |
| 1 | 38 (34.9%) | 33 (31.4%) | 30 (28.8%) | 21 (22.1%) | 12 (14.3%) | 32 (31.1%) | 33 (33.3%) | 25(26.3%) | 23(25.6%) | 17 (21.0%) | |||
| 2 | 23 (21.1%) | 6 (5.7%) | 5 (4.8%) | 3 (3.2%) | 3 (3.6%) | 16 (15.5%) | 5 (5.1%) | 4(4.2%) | 3(3.3%) | 3 (3.7%) | |||
| Gingival index | 0 | 62 (56.9%) | 73 (69.5%) | 74 (71.2%) | 80 (84.2%) | 78 (92.9%) | 53 (51.4%) | 68 (68.7%) | 70(73.7%) | 71(78.9%) | 70 (86.4%) | 3.67(3) | NS |
| 1 | 41 (37.6%) | 26 (24.8%) | 26 (25.0%) | 12 (12.6%) | 4 (4.8%) | 39 (37.9%) | 25 (25.3%) | 20 (21.1%) | 15 (16.7%) | 8 (9.9%) | |||
| 2 | 6 (5.5%) | 6 (5.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 3 (3.2%) | 2 (2.4%) | 11 (10.7%) | 6 (6.1%) | 5 (5.3%) | 4 (4.4%) | 3 (3.7%) | |||
| Occlusion | Normal | 0 | 102 (97.1%) | 104 (100%) | 95 (100%) | 84(100%) | 99 (96.1%) | 99 (100%) | 95 (100%) | 90 (100%) | 81 (100%) | 188.77(2) | <0.001 |
| Raised | 109 (100%) | 3 (2.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (3.9%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
HT, Hall technique; CT, conventional technique; df, degrees of freedom, p>0.05 considered significant; NS, not significant.
Cost comparison between the two modalities of treatment.
| HT | CT | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total cost | $267.58 | $804.47 | |
| Total successful treatments | 96 | 95 | |
| Major failures | 6 | 5 | |
| Mean cost per unit (±SD) | $2.45 (±0.14) | $7.81 (±1.41) | <0.05 |
| Cost per procedure (US$) | $2.79 | $8.47 | |
| ICER (US$/per year of survival) | - | $136.56 |
ICER = incremental cost-effective ratio