4.2 Article

THE CARIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: UPDATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS WITH 4-YEAR POSTTRIAL DATA

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462316000246

Keywords

Dental caries; Prevention; Cost-effectiveness; Economic analysis; Markov process

Funding

  1. Oral Health Foundation
  2. NHMRC [402466, 632715]
  3. Dental Board of NSW
  4. Australian Dental Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Long-term follow-up of the Caries Management System (CMS) protocol demonstrated that regular monitoring and noninvasive management of dental caries is effective in reducing the number of caries-related events over a 7-year period. This analysis complements the authors' original economic evaluation of the CMS by re-evaluating the per-protocol cost-effectiveness of the CMS approach. Methods: An individual patient-simulation Markov model was developed previously, based on 3-year randomized-controlled trial (RCT) data, to simulate the incidence and progression of dental caries, and resultant interventions, and to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of the CMS versus standard dental care from the Australian private dental practitioner perspective (in which the baseline age distribution was similar to that of the Australian population). The 4-year posttrial follow-up data are used to re-evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the CMS in a more real-life setting. Results: The reduction in caries risk was maintained among those practices within which the CMS protocols were adhered to. The per-protocol model appears to be reasonably accurate at predicting the risk of restorative events in the posttrial follow-up period. The per-protocol lifetime cost per restorative event avoided is AUD1,980 (USD1,409; 1 AUD = 0.71 USD). Conclusions: The current analysis confirms that the CMS approach is both effective, when the protocols are adhered to appropriately, and cost-effective compared with standard care in the Australian private practice setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available