A cost-effectiveness analysis of an endocrown versus complete crown
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this simulation study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an endocrown versus a complete crown as a definitive restoration for structurally compromised endodontically treated teeth. A Markov simulation model was constructed with endodontically treated permanent molar teeth using TreeAge Pro Healthcare (2023) as a starting point for an 18-year-old patient. Costs were extrapolated from the ADA dental survey based on the United States healthcare, and the probabilities of transition were derived from existing literature. The cost-effectiveness was determined by using Monte Carlo microsimulations. A sensitivity analysis was performed to validate the model internally, whereas an experienced health expert and an endodontist performed the face validation. The complete crown was associated with additional health benefits (1.36 and 0.9 more years over a period of 5 years and lifetime, respectively) but at an increased cost (an additional 1143 USD and 1535 USD over a period of 5 years and lifetime, respectively). Moreover, the endocrown was cost-effective at lower Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) values (92% acceptable at 250 USD for 5 years and 73% acceptable at 250 USD for the lifetime of an individual), whereas at increased WTP threshold values, the complete crown was a cost-effective treatment option (98.6% acceptable at 1250 USD for 5 years and 99.5% acceptable at 8000 USD over an individual's lifetime). The endocrown was a cost-effective restorative option at lower WTP values. However, at an increased WTP threshold, the complete crown became a more cost-effective restoration.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it