Fw: Detecting Proximal Secondary Caries Lesions: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. [feedly]

19. November 2015

Kai Müller



Betreff: Detecting Proximal Secondary Caries Lesions: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. [feedly]



Detecting Proximal Secondary Caries Lesions: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
// pubmed: systematic[sb] AND ((dental radiography) NOT (implants OR (amalgam composite)))

Related Articles

Detecting Proximal Secondary Caries Lesions: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

J Dent Res. 2015 Nov 16;

Authors: Schwendicke F, Brouwer F, Paris S, Stolpe M

When choosing detection methods for secondary caries lesions, dentists need to weigh sensitivity, allowing early initiation of retreatments to avoid lesion progression, against specificity, aiming to reduce risks of false-positive diagnoses and invasive overtreatments. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of different detection methods for proximal secondary lesions using Monte Carlo microsimulations. A vital permanent molar with an occlusal-proximal restoration was simulated over the lifetime of an initially 20-y-old. Three methods were compared: biannual tactile detection, radiographic detection every 2 y, and biannual laser fluorescence detection. Methods were employed either on their own or in pairwise combinations at sensitive and specific thresholds estimated with systematically collected data. A mixed public-private payer perspective in the context of German health care was applied. Effectiveness was calculated as years of tooth retention. Net-benefit analyses were used to evaluate cost-effectiveness acceptability at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Radiographic detection verified by tactile assessment (both at specific thresholds) was least costly (mean, 1,060 euros) but had limited effectiveness (mean retention time, 50 y). The most effective but also more costly combination was laser fluorescence detection verified by radiography, again at specific thresholds (1157 euros, 53 y, acceptable if willingness to pay >32 euro/y). In the majority of simulations, not combining detection methods or applying them at sensitive thresholds was less effective and more costly. Net benefits were not greatly altered by applying different discounting rates or using different baseline prevalence of secondary lesions. Current detection methods for secondary lesions should best be used in combination, not on their own, at specific thresholds to avoid false-positive diagnoses leading to costly and invasive overtreatment. The relevant characteristics, such as predictive value, of different methods should be assessed in longitudinal clinical studies.

PMID: 26574493 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]