Cost analysis of periodontitis management in public sector specialist dental clinics.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper is to quantify the cost of periodontitis management at public sector specialist periodontal clinic settings and analyse the distribution of cost components. METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4). RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P < 0.001). Providers generally spent most on consumables while patients spent most on transportation. CONCLUSIONS: Cost of providing dental treatment for periodontitis patients at public sector specialist settings were substantial and comparable with some non-communicable diseases. These findings provide basis for identifying potential cost-reducing strategies, estimating economic burden of periodontitis management and performing economic evaluation of the specialist periodontal programme.

Methods and preliminary findings of a cost-effectiveness study of glass-ionomer-based and composite resin sealant materials after 2 yr.

The cost-effectiveness of glass-carbomer, conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) [without or with heat (light-emitting diode (LED) thermocuring) application], and composite resin sealants were compared after 2 yr in function. Estimated net costs per sealant were obtained from data on personnel time (measured with activity sampling), transportation, materials, instruments and equipment, and restoration costs for replacing failed sealants from a community trial involving 7- to 9-yr-old Chinese children. Cost data were standardized to reflect the placement of 1,000 sealants per group. Outcomes were the differences in the number of dentine caries lesions that developed between groups. The average sealant application time ranged from 5.40 min (for composite resin) to 8.09 min (for LED thermocured HVGIC), and the average cost per sealant for 1,000 performed per group (simulation sample) ranged from $US3.73 (for composite resin) to $US7.50 (for glass-carbomer). The incremental cost-effectiveness of LED thermocured HVGIC to prevent one additional caries lesion per 1,000 sealants performed was $US1,106 compared with composite resin. Sensitivity analyses showed that differences in the cost of materials across groups had minimal impact on the overall cost. Cost and effectiveness data enhance policymakers' ability to address issues of availability, access, and compliance associated with poor oral-health outcomes, particularly when large numbers of children are excluded from care, in economies where oral health services are still developing.

Value for money: economic evaluation of two different caries prevention programmes compared with standard care in a randomized controlled trial.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial in a general dental practice in the Netherlands in which 230 6-year-old children (± 3 months) were assigned to either regular dental care, an increased professional fluoride application (IPFA) programme or a non-operative caries treatment and prevention (NOCTP) programme. Information on resource use during the 3-year period was documented by the dental nurse at every patient visit, such as treatment time, travel time and travel distance. Caries increment scores (at D3MFS level) were used to assess effectiveness. Cost calculations were performed using bottom-up micro-costing. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as additional average costs per prevented DMFS. The ICERs compared with regular dental care from a health care system perspective and societal perspective were, respectively, EUR 269 and EUR 1,369 per prevented DMFS in the IPFA programme, and EUR 30 and EUR 100 in the NOCTP programme. The largest investments for the NOCTP group were made in the first year of the study; they decreased in the second and equalled the costs of control group in third year of the study. From both medical and economic points of view, the NOCTP strategy may be considered the preferred strategy for caries prevention.

A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods.

BACKGROUND: There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic retention treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the costs in a randomized controlled trial of three retention methods during 2 years of retention treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives was equivalent. The study comprised 75 patients in 3 groups consisting of 25 each. The first group had a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla and a cuspid retainer in the mandible (group V-CTC), the second group had a VFR in the maxilla combined with stripping of the incisors and cuspids in the mandible (group V-S), and the third group had a prefabricated positioner (group P). Direct cost (premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of time at school) were calculated. Societal costs were defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: The societal costs/patient for scheduled appointments for 2 years of retention treatment in group V-CTC were €497, group V-S €451 and group P €420. Societal costs for unscheduled appointments in group V-CTC were €807 and in group V-S €303. In group P, there were no unscheduled appointments. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: After 2 years of retention in compliant patients, the cuspid retainer was the least cost-effective retention appliance. The CMA showed that for a clinically similar result, there were differences in societal costs, but treatment decisions should always be performed on an individual basis.

Economic impact of dental hygienists on solo dental practices.

The fact that a significant percentage of dentists employ dental hygienists raises an important question: Are dental practices that utilize a dental hygienist structurally and operationally different from practices that do not? This article explores differences among dental practices that operate with and without dental hygienists. Using data from the American Dental Association's 2003 Survey of Dental Practice, a random sample survey of U.S. dentists, descriptive statistics were used to compare selected characteristics of solo general practitioners with and without dental hygienists. Multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of dental hygienists on the gross billings and net incomes of solo general practitioners. Differences in practice characteristics--such as hours spent in the practice and hours spent treating patients, wait time for a recall visit, number of operatories, square feet of office space, net income, and gross billings--were found between solo general practitioners who had dental hygienists and those who did not. Solo general practitioners with dental hygienists had higher gross billings. Higher gross billings would be expected, as would higher expenses. However, net incomes of those with dental hygienists were also higher. In contrast, the mean waiting time for a recall visit was higher among dentists who employed dental hygienists. Depending on personal preferences, availability of qualified personnel, etc., dentists who do not employ dental hygienists but have been contemplating that path may want to further research the benefits and opportunities that may be realized.

The impact of additional dental providers in the dental labor market on the income of private practice dentists.

This study estimates the impact that the entrance of hypothetical allied dental professionals into the dental labor market may have on the earnings of currently practicing private practice dentists. A simulation model that uses the most reliable available data was constructed and finds that the introduction of hypothetical allied dental professionals into the competitive California dental labor market is likely to have relatively small effects on the earnings of the average dentist in California.