Economic Evaluations of Preventive and Minimally Invasive Children’s Dental Caries Procedures: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".