4.1 Article

Cost-effectiveness of an experimental caries-control regimen in a 3.4-yr randomized clinical trial among 11-12-yr-old Finnish schoolchildren

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 117, Issue 6, Pages 728-733

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00687.x

Keywords

caries; children; cost-effectiveness; randomized clinical trial

Funding

  1. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  2. Emil Aaltonen Foundation
  3. Finnish Dental Society Apollonia
  4. Yrjo Jahnsson Foundation
  5. Finnish Association for Dentists in Health Center
  6. Finnish Association of Women Dentists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an experimental caries-control regimen in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) conducted in Pori, Finland, in 2001-2005. Children (n = 497) who were 11-12 yr of age and had at least one active initial caries lesion at baseline were studied. The children in the experimental group (n = 250) were offered an individually designed patient-centered regimen for caries control. The children in the control group (n = 247) received standard dental care. Furthermore, the whole population was exposed to continuous community-level oral health promotion. Individual costs of treatment procedures and outcomes (DMFS increment score) for the follow-up period of 3.4 yr were calculated for each child in both groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro34.07 per averted DMF surface. The experimental regimen was more effective, and also more costly. However, the total costs decreased year after year, and for the last 2 yr the experimental regimen was less expensive than the standard dental care. The experimental regimen would probably have been more cost-effective than standard dental care if the follow-up period had been longer, the regimen less comprehensive, and/or if dental nurses had conducted the preventive procedures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available