Willingness to pay for dentin regeneration in a sample of dentate adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Measurement of individuals' valuation of dental treatments is important in the evaluation of new technologies. In this paper the value of dentin regeneration, a new treatment for teeth with reversible pulpitis, is measured based on what individuals say they would be willing to pay to receive the treatment. METHODS: A total of 611 randomly selected dentate adults answered willingness to pay (WTP) and dental insurance questions. Detailed descriptions of the process and expected outcomes for dentin regeneration were presented to subjects as part of a larger study measuring preferences for different treatments. WTP was determined for two different levels of success for dentin regeneration. RESULTS: At a success rate of 95%, the mean WTP for dentin regeneration was $262.70 (noninsured) and $11.00 per month (insured subjects). For success rate of 75%, the corresponding values were $210.90 and $9.20 per month. Multivariate analyses were used to identify any significant relationships between WTP and a range of variables covering socio-demographic, socio-economic, dental experience and oral health status variables. The findings indicate that individuals' valuations of treatments involve substantial unexplained variation. About half of the noninsured subjects would pay for dentin regeneration if it cost $200 per tooth. CONCLUSIONS: The data on the WTP for dentin regeneration indicate that a substantial percentage of adults will pay for this new technology. This study provides for the first time an estimate of WTP for dentin regeneration among the population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".