MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385683761 · doi:10.1177/23800844231191515

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regenerative Endodontics versus MTA Apexification

2023· article· en· W4385683761 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApexificationEndodonticsMedicineDentistryMineral trioxide aggregate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: With the introduction of stem cell engineering in dentistry, regenerative endodontics has emerged as a potential alternative to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth. However, the utility of this modality in terms of cost-effectiveness has not yet been established. Therefore, we performed cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the dominant treatment modality that would influence decision making from the private payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with a necrotic immature permanent tooth in a 7-y-old patient, followed over the lifetime using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2022. Transition probabilities were estimated based on the existing literature. Costs were estimated based on United States health care, and cost-effectiveness was determined using Monte Carlo microsimulations. The model was validated internally by sensitivity analyses, and face validation was performed by an experienced endodontist and health economist. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, regenerative endodontics did not turn out to be a dominant treatment option as it was associated with an additional cost of USD$1,012 and fewer retained tooth-years (15.48 y). Likewise, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, regenerative endodontics was again dominated by apexification against different willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, regenerative endodontic treatment was not cost-effective compared with apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth over an individual's lifetime. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The study provides valuable insight regarding the cost valuation and cost-efficacy of regenerative endodontic treatment versus apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth, as this would aid in effective clinical decision making, allowing for the functional allocation of resources.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.668
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.051 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it