Hall technique: is it superior in success and savings to conventional restorations?

Design A cost-effectiveness analysis of caries management in primary molars using Hall technique (HT) versus conventional restoration (CR) from a pre-existing dataset from a randomised split-mouth trial, within primary care in Scotland, with a five-year follow-up.Case selection Computer-generated block randomisation was used to match asymptomatic primary molars of 3-10-year-old children recruited from primary care, to either HT or CR arms.Economic evaluation A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. A five-year horizon was chosen. A societal perspective was adopted. Estimation of direct, indirect and opportunity costs were presented. Costs were discounted at 1.5%. Molar survival was chosen as the effectiveness measure.Data analysis Statistical significance of primary outcome (survival) was examined using the log-rank test. Bootstrapping produced a sampling distribution of mean cost and effectiveness with a 95% confidence interval around a mean value. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was provided.Results HT molars had superior survival of 99% (95% CI: 98-100%) compared to CR at 92% (95% CI: 87-97%). Initials costs indicated HT to be more expensive than CR; however, direct costs, including retreatments, were cheaper for HT when using both NHS Scotland and NHS England cost data. Indirect/opportunity costs, including time and travel of parents, were significantly less for HT. Total cumulative costs were significantly lower in HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31-34) than CR (49 GBP; 34-69). HT dominated CR, being less costly and more effective with a mean ICER of 2.38 GBP spent additionally while losing 1% of molar survival with CR over HT.Conclusions HT molars are cost-effective, compared to CR, when managing asymptomatic carious primary molars after five years' follow-up.