A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods

DSpace Repository

A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods

Show full item record

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item.


Simple item record

Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods
Author(s) Edman Tynelius, Gudrun ; Lilja-Karlander, Eva ; Petrén, Sofia
Date 2014
English abstract
SUMMARY BACKGROUND: There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic retention treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the costs in a randomized controlled trial of three retention methods during 2 years of retention treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives was equivalent. The study comprised 75 patients in 3 groups consisting of 25 each. The first group had a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla and a cuspid retainer in the mandible (group V-CTC), the second group had a VFR in the maxilla combined with stripping of the incisors and cuspids in the mandible (group V-S), and the third group had a prefabricated positioner (group P). Direct cost (premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of time at school) were calculated. Societal costs were defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: The societal costs/patient for scheduled appointments for 2 years of retention treatment in group V-CTC were €497, group V-S €451 and group P €420. Societal costs for unscheduled appointments in group V-CTC were €807 and in group V-S €303. In group P, there were no unscheduled appointments. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: After 2 years of retention in compliant patients, the cuspid retainer was the least cost-effective retention appliance. The CMA showed that for a clinically similar result, there were differences in societal costs, but treatment decisions should always be performed on an individual basis.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt070 (link to publisher's fulltext)
Publisher Oxford
Host/Issue European journal of orthodontics;4
Volume 36
ISSN 0141-5387
Pages 436-441
Language eng (iso)
Subject(s) Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/17558 (link to this page)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record



My Account