MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413810634 · doi:10.1159/000548099

Economic Evaluations of Preventive and Minimally Invasive Children’s Dental Caries Procedures: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4413810634 on OpenAlexafffund
Kamila Sihuay-Torres, Fabio Arriola‐Pacheco, Abdulrahman Ghoneim, Herenia P. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueCaries Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Indigenous Peoples' HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFluoride varnishChecklistData extractionMedicineMEDLINEScopusEconomic evaluationFamily medicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)DentistryEnvironmental healthNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The WHO's Global Oral Health Action Plan towards 2030 suggests prioritizing cost-effective preventive and minimally invasive (MI) dental caries interventions as essential oral health care services. Given the high prevalence of dental caries among children, raising awareness of the limitations and research gaps of the existing economic evaluations assessing preventive and MI procedures is crucial. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map the relevant literature on economic evaluations for preventive and MI dental caries procedures among children under 12 years of age. Summary: We conducted a systematic literature search using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, LILACS, and PEDE up to December 31st, 2023. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and data extraction using the Covidence software. A third reviewer resolved disagreements. Inclusion criteria comprised full economic evaluations and full-text original articles published in peer-reviewed journals, in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, without any date restrictions. Data extraction included methodological characteristics items. We appraised the content reported using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. Key Messages: Among 1,285 studies screened, 62 were selected for data extraction. Most studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (98%, n = 61), and only 10% (n = 6) and 3% (n = 2) conducted a cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis, respectively. The majority of studies evaluated sealants (32%, n = 20) and fluoride varnish (24%, n = 15), and only three assessed the cost-effectiveness of silver diamine fluoride. None of the included studies reported the CHEERS item related to community engagement. Moreover, there is a lack of studies among populations from the African region, most low- and lower-middle-income countries, and Indigenous communities. In conclusion, economic evaluations of preventive and MI dental caries procedures among children have increased over the last decade. Nonetheless, these are mostly cost-effectiveness analyses using clinically oriented outcomes, as opposed to patient-centred outcomes. We recommend collaboration with community partners while conducting economic evaluations for mutual capacity building. .

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaries ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207