Tan Minh Nguyen1,2, Utsana Tonmukayakul3, Long Khanh-Dao Le4, Hanny Calache3, Cathrine Mihalopoulos4. 1. Deakin Health Economics, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Level 3, Building BC, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, 2125, Australia. tan.nguyen@deakin.edu.au. 2. Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. tan.nguyen@deakin.edu.au. 3. Deakin Health Economics, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Level 3, Building BC, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, VIC, 2125, Australia. 4. Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To critically examine the methods used for full economic evaluations of preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis. METHODS: Published literature post-2000 was searched to April 2021. Based on a developed intervention classification framework for dental caries and periodontitis, only universal, selective or indicated interventions were included in this review. The Drummond 10-point checklist was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: Of 3,007 unique records screened for relevance, 73 studies were reviewed. Most model-based studies (61/73) used cost-effectiveness analysis (49%) or cost-benefit analysis (28%). Trial-based studies (16/73) commonly used cost-effectiveness analysis (59%). Four studies used both economic evaluation methods. Sixty-four papers (88%) were on dental caries, eight papers (11%) focused on periodontitis, and one paper (1%) included both oral diseases; 72% of model-based and 82% of trial-based studies were of good quality. The most frequently investigated dental caries preventive interventions were water fluoridation (universal intervention; cost-saving or cost-effective), fissure sealant and fluoride varnish (selective and indicated interventions; cost-effectiveness outcomes were inconsistent). Supportive periodontal therapy with oral health education (indicated intervention; cost-effective) was the most frequently evaluated preventive intervention for periodontitis. Thirty percent of studies with a time horizon > 1 year did not apply an appropriate discount rate and 26% did not comprehensively discuss other important considerations beyond the technical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Generic health outcome measures should be incorporated for economic evaluations on preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis, and an increased focus to prevent periodontitis using economic evaluation methods is needed to inform resource allocation and policy decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: To critically examine the methods used for full economic evaluations of preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis. METHODS: Published literature post-2000 was searched to April 2021. Based on a developed intervention classification framework for dental caries and periodontitis, only universal, selective or indicated interventions were included in this review. The Drummond 10-point checklist was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: Of 3,007 unique records screened for relevance, 73 studies were reviewed. Most model-based studies (61/73) used cost-effectiveness analysis (49%) or cost-benefit analysis (28%). Trial-based studies (16/73) commonly used cost-effectiveness analysis (59%). Four studies used both economic evaluation methods. Sixty-four papers (88%) were on dental caries, eight papers (11%) focused on periodontitis, and one paper (1%) included both oral diseases; 72% of model-based and 82% of trial-based studies were of good quality. The most frequently investigated dental caries preventive interventions were water fluoridation (universal intervention; cost-saving or cost-effective), fissure sealant and fluoride varnish (selective and indicated interventions; cost-effectiveness outcomes were inconsistent). Supportive periodontal therapy with oral health education (indicated intervention; cost-effective) was the most frequently evaluated preventive intervention for periodontitis. Thirty percent of studies with a time horizon > 1 year did not apply an appropriate discount rate and 26% did not comprehensively discuss other important considerations beyond the technical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Generic health outcome measures should be incorporated for economic evaluations on preventive interventions for dental caries and periodontitis, and an increased focus to prevent periodontitis using economic evaluation methods is needed to inform resource allocation and policy decision-making.
Authors: R G Watt; B Daly; P Allison; L M D Macpherson; R Venturelli; S Listl; R J Weyant; M R Mathur; C C Guarnizo-Herreño; R K Celeste; M A Peres; C Kearns; H Benzian Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Priscila Cunha Nascimento; Micaele Maria Lopes Castro; Marcela Baraúna Magno; Anna Paula Costa Ponte Sousa Carvalho Almeida; Nathália Carolina Fernandes Fagundes; Lucianne Cople Maia; Rafael Rodrigues Lima Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: M Sanz; A Marco Del Castillo; S Jepsen; J R Gonzalez-Juanatey; F D'Aiuto; P Bouchard; I Chapple; T Dietrich; I Gotsman; F Graziani; D Herrera; B Loos; P Madianos; J B Michel; P Perel; B Pieske; L Shapira; M Shechter; M Tonetti; C Vlachopoulos; G Wimmer Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2020-02-03