Centre of Oral, Clinical and Translational Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2023 Oct;51(5):755-766. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12751. Epub 2022 May 31.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of retaining one or more compromised first permanent molars (cFPMs) affected by dental caries or enamel hypomineralization, compared to timely extraction, in children aged 8 years.
A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime of a cFPM. Two management strategies were compared: extraction facilitating spontaneous space closure or maintenance of teeth with restorations. Ten health states were utilized to capture long-term outcomes including various tooth restorations, prostheses or a retained gap at the cFPM site. Outcomes were expressed as Quality Adjusted Tooth-Years (QATYs). The model was informed by survey data on patient preferences for treatment outcomes and UK data on costs. Discounted costs and QATYs were calculated over 62 years.
Regardless of the number of cFPMs, retaining cFPMs was more effective than early removal, generating an additional 2.3 QATYs per cFPM. Early removal of one or two cFPM under general anaesthetic (GA) was more expensive than retention and hence never cost-effective. Retaining a cFPM was more expensive than early removal under local anaesthesia or where four cFPMs were extracted under GA. In these cases, retaining cFPMs was cost-effective if a QATY was valued at £100 or £35, respectively. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis.
Preserving a cFPM was more cost-effective than the early loss of one, or two cFPMs under GA. Preservation of four cFPMs was cost-effective if sufficient value was placed on a QATY. These findings can guide clinical practice on management of cFPMs alongside patient/payer values on maintaining teeth.
评估保留一颗或多颗受龋齿或釉质矿化不全影响的第一恒磨牙(cFPM)与及时拔除相比,在 8 岁儿童中的成本效益。
建立了一个马尔可夫模型来模拟 cFPM 的终生。比较了两种管理策略:拔牙以促进自然间隙关闭或保留有修复体的牙齿。利用 10 种健康状态来捕捉长期结果,包括各种牙齿修复、义齿或 cFPM 部位的保留间隙。结果表示为质量调整牙年(QATYs)。该模型的信息来源于患者对治疗结果的偏好调查数据和英国成本数据。在 62 年内计算了贴现成本和 QATYs。
无论保留的 cFPM 数量如何,保留 cFPM 比早期拔除更有效,每颗 cFPM 可额外获得 2.3 个 QATYs。在全身麻醉(GA)下拔除一颗或两颗 cFPM 的费用高于保留,因此永远不具有成本效益。在局部麻醉下或在 GA 下拔除四颗 cFPM 时,保留 cFPM 的费用高于早期拔除。在这些情况下,如果 QATY 的价值分别为 100 英镑或 35 英镑,保留 cFPM 是具有成本效益的。结果对敏感性分析具有稳健性。
与 GA 下早期损失一颗或两颗 cFPM 相比,保留 cFPM 更具成本效益。如果对 QATY 的价值给予足够的重视,保留四颗 cFPM 是具有成本效益的。这些发现可以指导 cFPM 管理的临床实践,同时考虑患者/支付方对保留牙齿的价值。