Cost analysis of two types of fixed maxillary retainers and a removable vacuum-formed maxillary retainer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increased interest in conducting healthcare economic evaluations. Also, orthodontic treatments have gathered focus from an economic point of view, however orthodontic research seldom examines both clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the costs of three retention methods: a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors, a bonded retainer to the maxillary four incisors and canines, and a removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in costs for the three types of retention methods. TRIAL DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel group, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety adolescent patients, 54 girls and 36 boys, treated with fixed or removable retainers in the maxilla, were recruited to the study. The patients were randomized in blocks of 30, by an independent person, to one of three groups: bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 13-23, bonded multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics) retainer 12-22, and removable VFR. A cost analysis was made regarding chair time costs based on the costs per hour for the specialist in orthodontics, and material costs plus any eventual costs for repairs of the appliance. Changes in Little's irregularity index and in single contact point discrepancies (CPDs) were measured on digitalized three-dimensional study casts. Data were evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis. The analysis was performed at 2 years of retention. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in costs between the maxillary fixed retainers and the VFRs was found, however, the material and emergency costs were significantly higher for the VFR compared with the bonded retainers. All three retention methods showed equally effective retention capacity, and no statistically significant differences in irregularity or CPDs of the maxillary anterior teeth in the three groups was detected. LIMITATIONS: It was a single-centre trial, and hence less generalizable. Costs depended on local factors, and consequently, cannot be directly transferred to other settings. CONCLUSIONS: All three retention methods can be recommended when considering costs and retention capacity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04616755.

Trends in Medicaid-funded adolescent comprehensive orthodontic treatment provided by orthodontists to children in Oklahoma between 2010 and 2016.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends and rates of Medicaid-funded orthodontic treatment provided by orthodontists to children younger than 18 years in Oklahoma. METHODS: Enrollment and claims data were evaluated from the Oklahoma Medicaid program for a 7-year period, January 2010 through December 2016. Medicaid total enrollment data by age, sex, race or ethnicity, and county were included. Claims data were collected both for any dental services and comprehensive orthodontic treatment for adolescents. Descriptive statistics were used for the study variables. Proportions and odds ratios were calculated and compared using a chi-square test. RESULTS: Children aged between 15 and 18 years received orthodontic treatment more frequently than children aged between 6 and 14 years. Females received orthodontic treatment more frequently than males. Caucasians received orthodontic treatment more frequently than other races. Children who live in rural areas received orthodontic treatment more frequently than those living in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive orthodontic patients are more likely to be Caucasian females between the ages of 15 and 18 years living in rural areas. The Hispanic community is growing significantly in the Medicaid population. Access to care is still a problem faced by many.

Primer on State Statutory Mandates of Third-Party Orthodontic Coverage for Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Care in the United States.

Provision and timing of orthodontic treatment is a crucial part of comprehensive cleft palate and craniofacial care. Some states statutorily mandate orthodontic coverage for the medically necessary care of cleft palate and craniofacial anomalies. However, application of the medically necessary standard varies broadly. Disputes over medical necessity lead to orthodontic coverage denials and surgical intervention delays. Provider-friendly statutory definitions of medical necessity enable patients and providers to avoid such hurdles. The objective of this study is to evaluate state mandates and highlight language favorable to patients and providers.

A cost-minimization analysis of large overjet reduction with two removable functional appliances based on a randomized controlled trial.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess and relate the societal costs of reducing large overjet with a prefabricated functional appliance (PFA), or a slightly modified Andresen activator (AA), using a cost-minimization analysis (CMA). Design, settings, and participants: A multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients from 12 general dental practices. Ninety-seven patients with an Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusion, and an overjet of ≥6 mm were randomly allocated by lottery to treatment with either a PFA or an AA. The PFA and AA groups consisted of 57 and 40 subjects, respectively. Blinding was not performed. Duration of treatment, number of scheduled/unscheduled appointments, and retreatment were registered. Direct and indirect costs were analysed with reference to intention-to-treat (ITT), successful (S), and unsuccessful (US) outcomes. Societal costs were described as the total of direct and indirect costs, not including retreatments. Interventions: Treatment with a PFA or an AA. Results: The direct and societal costs were significantly lower for the PFA than for the AA group. The number of visits was lower in the PFA group, when ITT was considered, and for the US cases as well. No difference in retreatment rate could be seen between the groups. Limitations: Costs depend on local factors and thus should not be generalized to other settings. Harms: No harms were detected during the study. Conclusion: The success rate of the both appliances was low. However, the PFA was the preferred approach for reduction of a large overjet in mixed dentition, since it minimized costs and there were no difference in clinical outcomes between PFA and AA. Registration: This trial was registered at 'FoU i Sverige' (http://www.fou.nu/is/sverige), registration number: 97131. Protocol: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

Changes in university orthodontic care over a period of 20 years : Patient characteristics, treatment quality, and treatment costs.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to analyze whether there were changes in the severity of malocclusions of patients treated at the Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Germany over a period of 20 years (1992-2012) and if the implementation of the KIG system (German index of treatment need) in 2001 had any effect on the patient cohort. Furthermore, the study aimed to analyze the influence of the severity of malocclusion on treatment quality and economic efficiency (relation payment per case/treatment effort). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of all 5385 patients admitted to the orthodontic department between 1992 and 2012 were screened and the following information was recorded: patient characteristics, treatment duration, KIG, treatment outcome, and costs. RESULTS: In the KIG period, patients were older, pretreatment malocclusions were more severe, treatment took longer, required more appointments, and did not achieve the same degree of perfection as in the pre-KIG period. Patients with a higher pretreatment KIG category had longer treatments and did not achieve the same degree of perfection as patients with lower KIG categories. Although total payment was slightly higher for the more severe cases, their cost-per-appointment ratio was significantly lower. CONCLUSION: In the present university department, a shift of the orthodontic care task towards more complex cases has occurred over the last 20 years. Generally the quality of orthodontic treatment was good, but it has been demonstrated that the higher KIG cases did not end up at the same level of excellence as the lower KIG cases. Furthermore, KIG 5 patients had a longer treatment duration, and required more appointments than lower KIG cases.

"I Hope I Get Movie-star Teeth": Doing the Exceptional Normal in Orthodontic Practice for Young People.

Orthodontics offer young people the chance to improve their bite and adjust their appearances. The most common reasons for orthodontic treatment concern general dentists', parents' or children's dissatisfaction with the esthetics of the bite. My aim is to analyze how esthetic norms are used during three activities preceding possible treatment with fixed appliances. The evaluation indexes signal definitiveness and are the essential grounds for decision-making. In parallel, practitioners and patients refer to self-perceived satisfaction with appearances. Visualizations of divergences and the improved future bite become part of an interactive process that upholds what I conceptualize as "the exceptional normal." Insights into this process contribute to a better understanding of how medical practices intended to measure and safeguard children's and young people's health at the same time mobilize patients to look and feel better. The article is based on an ethnographic study at two orthodontic clinics.

Health economic evaluations in orthodontics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation is assuming increasing importance as an integral component of health services research. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of the literature and assess the evidence from studies presenting orthodontic treatment outcomes and the related costs. MATERIALS/METHODS: The literature review was conducted in four steps, according to Goodman's model, in order to identify all studies evaluating economic aspects of orthodontic interventions. The search covered the databases Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and SCOPUS, for the period from 1966 to September 2014. The inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing at least two different orthodontic interventions, evaluation of both economic and orthodontic outcomes, and study populations of all ages. The quality of each included study was assessed as limited, moderate, or high. The overall evidence was assessed according to the GRADE system (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: The applied terms for searches yielded 1838 studies, of which 989 were excluded as duplicates. Application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified 26 eligible studies for which the full-text versions were retrieved and scrutinized. At the final analysis, eight studies remained. Three studies were based on cost-effectiveness analyses and the other five on cost-minimization analysis. Two of the cost-minimization studies included a societal perspective, i.e. the sum of direct and indirect costs. The aims of most of the studies varied widely and of studies comparing equivalent treatment methods, few were of sufficiently high study quality. Thus, the literature to date provides an inadequate evidence base for economic aspects of orthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION: This systematic review disclosed that few orthodontic studies have presented both economic and clinical outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence available about the health economics of orthodontic interventions. Further investigation is warranted.

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Cleft Lip Adhesion and Nasoalveolar Molding before Formal Cleft Lip Repair.

BACKGROUND: Patients with complete cleft lip and palate may benefit from cleft lip adhesion or nasoalveolar molding before formal cleft lip repair. The authors compared the relative costs to insurers of these two treatment modalities and the burden of care to families. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of cleft lip and palate patients treated with nasoalveolar molding or cleft lip adhesion at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia between January of 2007 and June of 2012. Demographic, appointment, and surgical data were reviewed; surgical, inpatient hospital, and orthodontic charges and costs were obtained. Multivariate linear regression and two-sample, two-tailed independent t tests were performed to compare cost and appointment data between groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cleft adhesion and 35 nasoalveolar molding patients met inclusion criteria. Mean costs for nasoalveolar molding were $3550.24 ± $667.27. Cleft adhesion costs, consisting of both hospital and surgical costs, were $9370.55 ± $1691.79. Analysis of log costs demonstrated a significant difference between the groups, with the mean total cost for nasoalveolar molding significantly lower than that for adhesion (p < 0.0001). Nasoalveolar molding patients had significantly more made, cancelled, no-show, and missed visits and a higher missed percentage than adhesion patients (p < 0.0001) for all except no-show appointments, (p = 0.0199), indicating a higher burden of care to families. CONCLUSIONS: Nasoalveolar molding may cost less before formal cleft lip repair treatment than cleft lip adhesion. Third-party payers who cover adhesion and not nasoalveolar molding may not be acting in their own best interest. Nasoalveolar molding places a higher burden of care on families, and this fact should be considered in planning treatment.

Compliance by state-subsidized and self-pay orthodontic patients.

INTRODUCTION: Medicaid is a needs-based program in the United States that subsidizes medical and dental care for minors. The purpose of this study was to test for compliance differences between self-pay and Medicaid-supported patients. METHODS: Medicaid patient records (n = 88) were perused retrospectively for characteristics that distract from an orthodontist's workflow (missed appointments, broken brackets, treatment duration, and so on) and compared with a sample (n = 145) of self-pay patients from the same teaching clinic. Differences in treatment difficulty were adjusted by subject selection and statistically (analysis of covariance). RESULTS: Medicaid patients were younger (mean age, 14.1 vs 14.9 years) and significantly more likely to be dismissed from treatment (19% vs 4%), generally for noncompliance. Broken brackets and missed appointments were more common in the Medicaid sample. There was no difference in the number of appointments in those completing treatment, but treatment duration was significantly longer for the Medicaid patients who completed treatment (29 vs 25 months). Commute distance and estimated driving time were significantly shorter for the Medicaid-assisted group. CONCLUSIONS: Greater difficulty in managing Medicaid patients may partly explain why they are underserved. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the causes of the differences.

Income-related inequalities in preventive and curative dental care use among working-age Japanese adults in urban areas: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Preventive dental care use remains relatively low in Japan, especially among working-age adults. Universal health insurance in Japan covers curative dental care with an out-of-pocket payment limit, though its coverage of preventive dental care is limited. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that income inequality in dental care use is found in preventive, but not curative dental care among working-age Japanese adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a computer-assisted, self-administered format for community residents aged 25-50 years. In all, 4357 residents agreed to participate and complete the questionnaire (valid response rate: 31.3%). Preventive dental care use was measured according to whether the participant had visited a dentist or a dental hygienist during the past year for dental scaling or fluoride or orthodontic treatments. Curative dental care use was assessed by dental visits for other reasons. The main explanatory variable was equivalent household income. Logistic regression analyses with linear trend tests were conducted to determine whether there were significant income-related gradients with curative or preventive dental care use. RESULTS: Among the respondents, 40.0% of men and 41.5% of women had used curative dental care in the past year; 24.1% of men and 34.1% of women had used preventive care. We found no significant income-related gradients of curative dental care among either men or women (p = 0.234 and p = 0.270, respectively). Significant income-related gradients of preventive care were observed among both men and women (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). Among women, however, income-related differences were no longer significant (p = 0.126) after adjusting for education and other covariates. Compared with men with the lowest income, the highest-income group had a 1.79-fold significantly higher probability for using preventive dental care. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of preventive dental care use was lower than that of curative care. The results showed income-related inequality in preventive dental care use among men, though there were no significant income-related gradients of curative dental care use among either men or women. Educational attainment had a positive association with preventive dental care use only among women.

Patients', parents', and orthodontists' perceptions of the need for and costs of additional procedures to reduce treatment time.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients', parents', and orthodontists' perspectives on orthodontic treatment duration and techniques for accelerating the rate of tooth movement. METHODS: Adolescent patients (n = 200) and their parents (n = 200), and adult patients (n = 50) from a multidoctor practice were personally surveyed regarding treatment duration and acceptance of appliances and techniques to enhance the speed of orthodontic treatment, and how much increase in fees they were willing to pay for these. Members of the American Association of Orthodontists were surveyed electronically regarding their willingness to use these techniques and appliances and the costs they were willing to pay for them. RESULTS: A total of 683 orthodontists replied to the electronic survey (7.5%). Approximately 70% of the orthodontists who replied to the survey were interested in adopting additional clinical procedures to reduce treatment time. No significant association was found between practice characteristics and interest in adopting clinical procedures to reduce treatment time. The invasiveness of the procedure was inversely related to its acceptance in all groups surveyed. Most orthodontists are willing to pay only up to 20% of their treatment fee to companies for the use of technologies that reduce treatment time, and most patients and parents were willing to pay only up to a 20% increase in fees for these approaches. Orthodontists thought that increases in the rate of tooth movement could pose a problem for fee collection. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists and patients alike are interested in techniques that can accelerate tooth movement. Similarities between all groups were found regarding the acceptance of different approaches to accelerate tooth movement and the percentage of the orthodontic fee that would be paid for these techniques. Less-invasive techniques had greater acceptability in all groups.

Geographic accessibility and utilization of orthodontic services among Medicaid children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To describe rates of Medicaid-funded services provided by orthodontists in Iowa to children and adolescents, identify factors associated with utilization, and describe geographic barriers to care. METHODS: We analyzed enrollment and claims data from the Iowa Medicaid program for a 3-year period, January 2008 through December 2010. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed with utilization of orthodontic services as the main outcome variable. Service areas were identified by small area analysis in order to examine regional variability in utilization. RESULTS: The overall rate of orthodontic utilization was 3.1 percent. Medicaid enrollees living in small towns and rural areas were more likely to utilize orthodontic services than those living in urban areas. Children who had an oral evaluation by a primary care provider in the year prior to the study period were more likely to receive orthodontic services. Service areas with lower population density and greater mean travel distance to participating orthodontists had higher utilization rates than smaller, more densely populated areas. CONCLUSIONS: Rural residency and increased travel distances do not appear to act as barriers to orthodontic care for this population. The wide variability of utilization rates seen across service areas may be related to workforce supply in the form of orthodontists who accept Medicaid-insured patients. Referrals to orthodontists from primary care dentists may improve access to specialty care for Medicaid enrollees.

Early correction of posterior crossbite--a cost-minimization analysis.

There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the costs of correcting posterior crossbites with Quad Helix (QH) or expansion plates (EPs) and to relate the costs to the effects. To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives is identical. The study comprised 40 subjects in the mixed dentition, who had undergone treatment for unilateral posterior crossbite: 20 with QH and 20 with EPs. Duration of treatment, number of appointments, broken appointments, and cancellations were registered. Direct costs (for the premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of income due to parent's assumed absence from work) were calculated and evaluated for successful treatment alone, for successful and unsuccessful treatment and re-treatment when required. The QH had significantly lower direct and indirect costs, with fewer failures requiring re-treatment. Even the costs for successful cases only were significantly lower in the QH than in the EP group. The results clearly show that in terms of cost-minimization, QH is the preferred method for correcting posterior crossbite in the mixed dentition.

Comparison of treatment costs and outcome in public orthodontic services in Finland.

The objectives of the study were to compare the costs and outcome of orthodontic treatment in eight municipal health centres in Finland. A random sample of the age groups of 16- and 18-year-olds (n = 1109) living in these municipalities was clinically examined by two calibrated orthodontists. The acceptability of the morphology and function of the occlusion were assessed with the Occlusal Morphology and Function Index (OMFI). The data concerning previous orthodontic treatment were collected from the patient records of all subjects (n = 608) who reported previous or ongoing orthodontic treatment or who could not recall if they had received orthodontic treatment. The health centres were grouped into an early and a late timing group according to the mean age of starting the treatment. The mean age for starting orthodontic treatment was 8.0 years (SD 1.9) in the early group and 10.7 years (SD 2.3) in the late group. The visit costs and the costs of orthodontic appliances without overheads comprised the operating costs. The cost-effectiveness of orthodontic services was measured by estimating how much each health centre had to have paid for one per cent unit of acceptable morphology and acceptable function of occlusion. The mean appliance costs were higher in the late timing group and the mean visit costs higher in the early timing group. The mean operating costs per case were €720 in the early and €649 in the late timing group. However, there was a great variation within both groups. The cost of one per cent unit of acceptable morphology was the same in the two timing groups, while the cost of one per cent unit of acceptable function was lower in the early timing group. The low operating costs as such did not totally explain the better cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness was not directly connected with the timing of treatment.