TABLE 4Oral Health Review Economics Papers - Characteristics of Studies

StudyComparisonType of Target groupEffectivenessthe study measureCost/resourceMethod
Davenport et al., 2003.UK3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 months1-6 years of age with only deciduous dentition, 12-80 years of age with only permanent dentition according to:





Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)Number of teeth free from decay, extraction or fillings for deciduous (dmft) and permanent (DMFT)Average cost of OHR and cost associated with the treatment of decay (filling deciduous and permanent dentition)Markov Decision Analysis
Dawson and Smales, 1992, Australia6 vs. 12 monthsAircrew (n=24) and Groundcrew (n=76) from Australian defence forceCost Impact AnalysisAverage number of restorations and Restoration survivalAverage cost of treatment + examination10 year Retrospective
Wang et al., 1992, Norway12 vs. 24 months185 children,Resource UseIncrement in decayed, missing, filled and sound tooth surfaces (DMFS)Mean total time (minutes) for examination and treatment2 year RCT
3-5 year old
12 months
24 months
16-18 year old
12 months
24 months
18-20 year old
12 months
24 months
Wang and Holst, 1995, Norway12.5 (mean) months vs. 13.7 (mean) monthschildren aged 3-18 years of age (approx.2750)Resource UseDecline in number of new decayed teethMean Clinical time (min) (examination+ treatment) spent per patient-excluding orthodontic treatment2 year cohort
Lunder, 1994, Norway12 vs. 18 months46 high school childrenResource useIncrement in DMFSOverall mean time/patient Examination mean time/patient7 year Current study (ecological)

From: 2, Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine dental checks (HTA update)

Cover of Dental Recall
Dental Recall: Recall Interval Between Routine Dental Examinations.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 19.
National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care (UK).
Copyright © 2004, National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.