Comparing the costs of three sealant delivery strategies

SO Griffin, PM Griffin, BF Gooch… - Journal of dental …, 2002 - journals.sagepub.com
SO Griffin, PM Griffin, BF Gooch, LK Barker
Journal of dental research, 2002journals.sagepub.com
We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of 3 sealant delivery strategies: Seal all (SA), seal
children assessed to be at risk by screening (TARGET), and seal none (SN). We assumed a
nine-year analytic horizon, a 3% discount rate, and zero screening costs. Estimates for
sealant costs (27.00)andrestorationcosts( 73.77), annual caries increment (0.0624 surfaces),
sealant failure rate (20% in yr 1 and 3% thereafter), annual amalgam failure rate (4.6%), and
sensitivity (0.635) and specificity (0.795) of screening were obtained from published studies …
We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of 3 sealant delivery strategies: Seal all (SA), seal children assessed to be at risk by screening (TARGET), and seal none (SN). We assumed a nine-year analytic horizon, a 3% discount rate, and zero screening costs. Estimates for sealant costs ($27.00) and restoration costs ($73.77), annual caries increment (0.0624 surfaces), sealant failure rate (20% in yr 1 and 3% thereafter), annual amalgam failure rate (4.6%), and sensitivity (0.635) and specificity (0.795) of screening were obtained from published studies. Under baseline assumptions, TARGET dominated (cost less and reduced caries) SA and SN. If annual caries increment exceeded 0.095 surfaces, SA dominated TARGET, and if increment exceeded 0.05 surfaces, TARGET dominated SN. If sealant costs decreased to $6.00 (reported cost for school programs), TARGET dominated SN for caries increments exceeding 0.007 surfaces, and SA dominated TARGET for caries increments exceeding 0.034 surfaces.
Sage Journals
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果