Skip to main content

Table 2 Cost-effectiveness of different excavation strategies in individuals with different risks

From: Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups − a micro-simulation study

Status

Strategy

Mean (SD) tooth retention time in years

∆ (%)

Total lost teeth

Mean (SD) costs per tooth in Euro

∆ (%)

Rank (u/d)

ICER

Probability highest net-benefit (%)

Mean (SD) total private costs for all posterior teeth in Euro

∆ (%)

Probability highest net-benefit (%)

Low risk

Complete

59.0 (1)

−0.5

0.26

27.80 (12.56)

+3.3

2 (d)

−1.78

16

181.12 (64.62)

+2.8

6

Stepwise

59.0 (1)

−0.5

0.26

28.02 (12.99)

+4.1

3 (d)

−35.12

13

176.67 (62.22)

+0.8

13

Selective

59.5 (1)

-

0.13

26.91 (12.11)

-

1

 

71

175.11 (62.36)

-

81

High risk

Complete

54.0 (1)

−2.0

1.60

335.12 (22.12)

+11.8

2 (d)

−17.66

0

2233.28 (269.56)

+15.0

0

Stepwise

54.0 (1)

−2.0

1.60

340.51 (31.95)

+13.6

3 (d)

−21.56

0

2180.32 (255.98)

+12.3

0

Selective

56.0 (1)

-

1.33

299.80 (11.02)

-

1

 

100

1941.44 (242.12)

-

100

  1. Besides absolute cost-effectiveness values (mean and standard deviations, rounded to .0/.5), differences between strategies (∆, %) were calculated relative to the highest ranked strategy. Strategies were found either dominated (more costly and less effective) or undominated (more costly, but more effective) than the highest ranked strategy.
  2. Moreover, private out-of-pocket expenses for each strategy were calculated. ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (∆ costs/∆ effectiveness, relative to next ranked strategy). u/d = (un)dominated.