The monitor practice programme: Is non-invasive management of dental caries in private practice cost-effective?

Bradley Curtis, E. Warren, C. Pollicino, R. W. Evans, Eli Schwarz, A. Sbaraini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The objective of this research was to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a non-invasive approach to dental caries management in private dental practice. Methods: Private dental practices from a variety of locations in New South Wales were randomly allocated to either noninvasive management of caries, or continue with usual care. Patients were followed for three years and caries incidence assessed. A patient-level decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention at two years, three years, and hypothetical lifetime. Results: Twenty-two dental practices and 920 patients were recruited. Within the clinical trial there was a significant difference in caries increment favouring non-invasive therapy at both two and three years. Efficacy was independent of age, gender, medical concerns, fluoride history, or previous history of dental caries, in a population of patients attending for treatment in private dental practices, in a variety of locations both urban and rural. Cost per DMFT avoided estimate was A$1287.07 (two years), A$1148.91 (three years) decreasing to A$702.52 in (medium) and A$545.93 (high) risk patients (three years). Conclusions: A joint preventive and non-invasive therapeutic approach appears to be cost-effective in patients at medium and high risk of developing dental caries when compared to the standard care provided by private dental practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)48-55
Number of pages8
JournalAustralian Dental Journal
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Private Practice
Dental Caries
Tooth
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
New South Wales
Fluorides
Therapeutics
Joints
History
Clinical Trials
Incidence
Research
Population

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Dental caries
  • Evidence-based care
  • Prevention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The monitor practice programme : Is non-invasive management of dental caries in private practice cost-effective? / Curtis, Bradley; Warren, E.; Pollicino, C.; Evans, R. W.; Schwarz, Eli; Sbaraini, A.

In: Australian Dental Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, 03.2011, p. 48-55.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Curtis, Bradley ; Warren, E. ; Pollicino, C. ; Evans, R. W. ; Schwarz, Eli ; Sbaraini, A. / The monitor practice programme : Is non-invasive management of dental caries in private practice cost-effective?. In: Australian Dental Journal. 2011 ; Vol. 56, No. 1. pp. 48-55.
@article{3ca55fc0074c4393ac9b593425b5a945,
title = "The monitor practice programme: Is non-invasive management of dental caries in private practice cost-effective?",
abstract = "Background: The objective of this research was to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a non-invasive approach to dental caries management in private dental practice. Methods: Private dental practices from a variety of locations in New South Wales were randomly allocated to either noninvasive management of caries, or continue with usual care. Patients were followed for three years and caries incidence assessed. A patient-level decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention at two years, three years, and hypothetical lifetime. Results: Twenty-two dental practices and 920 patients were recruited. Within the clinical trial there was a significant difference in caries increment favouring non-invasive therapy at both two and three years. Efficacy was independent of age, gender, medical concerns, fluoride history, or previous history of dental caries, in a population of patients attending for treatment in private dental practices, in a variety of locations both urban and rural. Cost per DMFT avoided estimate was A$1287.07 (two years), A$1148.91 (three years) decreasing to A$702.52 in (medium) and A$545.93 (high) risk patients (three years). Conclusions: A joint preventive and non-invasive therapeutic approach appears to be cost-effective in patients at medium and high risk of developing dental caries when compared to the standard care provided by private dental practice.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Dental caries, Evidence-based care, Prevention",
author = "Bradley Curtis and E. Warren and C. Pollicino and Evans, {R. W.} and Eli Schwarz and A. Sbaraini",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01286.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "48--55",
journal = "Australian Dental Journal",
issn = "0045-0421",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The monitor practice programme

T2 - Is non-invasive management of dental caries in private practice cost-effective?

AU - Curtis, Bradley

AU - Warren, E.

AU - Pollicino, C.

AU - Evans, R. W.

AU - Schwarz, Eli

AU - Sbaraini, A.

PY - 2011/3

Y1 - 2011/3

N2 - Background: The objective of this research was to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a non-invasive approach to dental caries management in private dental practice. Methods: Private dental practices from a variety of locations in New South Wales were randomly allocated to either noninvasive management of caries, or continue with usual care. Patients were followed for three years and caries incidence assessed. A patient-level decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention at two years, three years, and hypothetical lifetime. Results: Twenty-two dental practices and 920 patients were recruited. Within the clinical trial there was a significant difference in caries increment favouring non-invasive therapy at both two and three years. Efficacy was independent of age, gender, medical concerns, fluoride history, or previous history of dental caries, in a population of patients attending for treatment in private dental practices, in a variety of locations both urban and rural. Cost per DMFT avoided estimate was A$1287.07 (two years), A$1148.91 (three years) decreasing to A$702.52 in (medium) and A$545.93 (high) risk patients (three years). Conclusions: A joint preventive and non-invasive therapeutic approach appears to be cost-effective in patients at medium and high risk of developing dental caries when compared to the standard care provided by private dental practice.

AB - Background: The objective of this research was to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a non-invasive approach to dental caries management in private dental practice. Methods: Private dental practices from a variety of locations in New South Wales were randomly allocated to either noninvasive management of caries, or continue with usual care. Patients were followed for three years and caries incidence assessed. A patient-level decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention at two years, three years, and hypothetical lifetime. Results: Twenty-two dental practices and 920 patients were recruited. Within the clinical trial there was a significant difference in caries increment favouring non-invasive therapy at both two and three years. Efficacy was independent of age, gender, medical concerns, fluoride history, or previous history of dental caries, in a population of patients attending for treatment in private dental practices, in a variety of locations both urban and rural. Cost per DMFT avoided estimate was A$1287.07 (two years), A$1148.91 (three years) decreasing to A$702.52 in (medium) and A$545.93 (high) risk patients (three years). Conclusions: A joint preventive and non-invasive therapeutic approach appears to be cost-effective in patients at medium and high risk of developing dental caries when compared to the standard care provided by private dental practice.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Dental caries

KW - Evidence-based care

KW - Prevention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952022565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952022565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01286.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01286.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21332740

AN - SCOPUS:79952022565

VL - 56

SP - 48

EP - 55

JO - Australian Dental Journal

JF - Australian Dental Journal

SN - 0045-0421

IS - 1

ER -