Objectives: When planning primary oral health care services the cost implications of adopting new intervention practices are important, especially in resource-strapped countries. Although on a trajectory to be phased-out, amalgam remains the standard of care in many countries.
Methods: Adopting a government perspective, this study compared the costs of performing amalgam and ART/high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations and the consequences of failed restorations over 3 years in suburban Brasilia, Brazil. Cost data were collected prospectively; cost estimates were developed for the study sample and a projection of 1000 single- and 1000 multiple-surface restorations per group. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted in TreeAge Pro.
Results: Results were mixed. For single-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC will cost US$51 per failure prevented, while for multiple-surface restorations, ART/HVGIC was cost-effective with a savings of US$11 compared to amalgam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) predicted amalgam would be cost-effective 49.2% of the time compared to HVGIC at 50.6% of the time at a willingness to pay threshold of US$237 per failure prevented. Personnel accounted for more than half the cost burden for both methods; instruments and supplies accounted for about one third. The per restoration cost to replace amalgam with HVGIC ranges from US$1 to a savings of US$0.84.
Conclusion: Replacing amalgam with a high-viscosity glass-ionomer as part of the ART method comes at a minimal increase in cost for governments. Increasing the number of restorations seems to diminish the cost burden.
Clinical significance: ART/HVGIC could be considered a viable alternative to amalgam in primary teeth.
Keywords: Amalgam; Atraumatic restorative treatment; Cost; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Glass ionomer cement; Primary teeth; Restorations; Treatment time.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.