Background: Over the last years, conventional restorations for the treatment of active carious lesions (CL) in primary teeth have been challenged and a more biological approach has been suggested. This approach involves less invasive techniques that alter the environment of the CL isolating it from the cariogenic biofilm and substrate. Aim: To investigate the cost-effectiveness and patient acceptance of 2 treatment approaches for the treatment of deep CLs in primary teeth in children. Methods: This was a retrospective/prospective cohort study carried out in 2 UK specialist hospital settings. Data on cost-effectiveness was extracted retrospectively from clinical dental records of 246 patients aged 4–9 years. A prospective study design was used to explore patient acceptance of the 2 treatment approaches. One hundred and ten patients aged 4–9 years and their carers completed 2 questionnaires on treatment acceptance. Results: In total, 836 primary teeth that had received treatment with either approach were included. More than 2 thirds (75.7%) of the restorations in the conventional approach were of non-selective removal to hard dentine followed by pulpotomy (24.3%). In the biological approach, most of the restorations were stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall Technique (95%) followed by selective removal to firm dentine (5%). The majority of the primary teeth remained asymptomatic after a follow-up period of up to 77 months; 95.3% in the conventional and 95.8% in the biological arm. When the treatment costs were analysed, a statistically significant difference was found between the mean costs of the 2 approaches with a mean difference of GBP 45.20 (Pound Sterling; p < 0.001), in favour of the biological approach. The majority of the children and carers were happy with the conventional or biological restorations. Conclusion: Although both approaches had similar successful outcomes, the biological approach consisting mainly of Hall Technique was associated with reduced treatment costs. Both approaches were accepted favourably by the children and carers.

Keywords:
Dental caries, Primary teeth, Conventional treatment , Biological treatment, Cost-effectiveness, Treatment acceptance
1.
Banerjee A, Frencken JE, Schwendicke F, Innes N: Contemporary operative caries management: consensus recommendations on minimally invasive caries removal. Br Dent J 2017; 223: 215–222.
2.
BaniHani A, Duggal M, Toumba J, Deery C: Outcomes of the conventional and biological treatment approaches for the management of caries in the primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017: 1–11.
3.
Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD: Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 218–224.
4.
Cunningham SJ: Economic evaluation of healthcare – is it important to us? Br Dent J 2000; 188: 250–254.
5.
Coll JA, Seale NS, Vargas K, Marghalani AA, Al Shamali S, Graham L: Primary tooth vital pulp therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Dent 2017; 39: 16–123.
6.
Duggal M, Nooh A, High A: Response of the primary pulp to inflammation: a review of the Leeds studies and challenges for the future. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002; 3: 111–114.
7.
Franzon R, Guimarães LF, Magalhães CE, Haas AN, Araujo FB: Outcomes of one-step incomplete and complete excavation in primary teeth: a 24-month randomized controlled trial. Caries Res 2014; 48: 376–383.
8.
Howard K, Freeman R: Reliability and validity of a faces version of the modified child dental anxiety scale. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007; 17: 281–288.
9.
Hume WR: The pharmacologic and toxicological properties of zinc oxide-eugenol. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 113: 789–791.
10.
Innes NPT, Stirrups DR, Evans DJ, Hall N, Leggate M: A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice – a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J 2006; 200: 451–454.
11.
Innes N, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR: The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health 2007; 7: 1–21.
12.
Marshman Z, Hall MJ: Oral health research with children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 235–242.
13.
Page L, Boyd DH, Davidson SE, McKay SK, Thomson WM, Innes NP: Acceptability of the hall technique to parents and children. N Z Dent J 2014; 110: 12–17.
14.
Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NP, Kidd E, Clarkson JE: Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 3:CD003808.
15.
Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA: Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16: 15–23.
16.
Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJ, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH: Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. Int J Paediatr Dent 2015; 25: 9–17.
17.
Schwendicke F, Dörfer CE, Paris S: Incomplete caries removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2013; 92: 306–314.
18.
Schwendicke F, Stolpe M, Meyer-Lueckel H, Paris S, Dörfer CE: Cost-effectiveness of one- and two-step incomplete and complete excavations. J Dent Res 2013b; 10: 880–887.
19.
Schwendicke F, Paris S, Stolpe M: Cost-effectiveness of caries excavations in different risk groups – a micro-simulation study. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 1–9.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.