Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The Newcastle University research output collection, currently available on ePrints, will shortly be moving to a new open repository platform, Figshare. To prepare for the data migration we have paused adding new content to ePrints, and will resume once the new repository is launched. During this time you will continue to have access to ePrints (but no new content will appear). We will share updates here when available.

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

Lookup NU author(s): Sarah Simpson, Professor Paula WaterhouseORCiD

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.

Abstract

© 2020, British Dental Association. 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.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Simpson S, Waterhouse PJ

Publication type: Review

Publication status: Published

Journal: Evidence-Based Dentistry

Year: 2020

Volume: 21

Issue: 4

Pages: 128-129

Print publication date: 31/12/2020

Online publication date: 18/12/2020

Acceptance date: 02/04/2018

ISSN (print): 1462-0049

ISSN (electronic): 1476-5446

Publisher: Springer Nature

URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0134-2

DOI: 10.1038/s41432-020-0134-2

Share