An exploratory study of the cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care in seven European countries.

Jamie Deans, Rebecca Playle, Peter Durning, Stephen Richmond
Author Information
  1. Jamie Deans: Department of Dental Health and Biological Sciences, Cardiff University Dental Hospital, Cardiff, UK.

Abstract

This study investigated the orthodontic treatment of 429 consecutive patients [172 male (40.1 per cent) and 257 female (59.9 per cent)] carried out by 10 orthodontic specialist practitioners in seven European countries [two in the Czech Republic (A and B), two in Germany (A and B), Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Netherlands, and two in Slovenia (A and B)]. The median age of the patients at the start of treatment was 13.0 years (minimum 7.3 years maximum 50.3 years). The patients had a range of malocclusions and the majority (97 per cent) were treated with upper and lower fixed appliances. Real exchange rates were calculated using purchasing power parity (PPP) indicators to allow cross-border comparisons of costs. The Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON) was used to measure the effectiveness of treatment and cost per ICON point reduction to compare cost-effectiveness of orthodontic treatment between practitioners in different European countries. The median cost per ICON point reduction for all the cases treated was 57.69 euro. The median cost per ICON point reduction varied greatly between practitioners from 21.70 euro (Lithuania) to 116.62 euro (Slovenia A). Analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests showed the differences in cost-effectiveness between the practitioners to be statistically significant (P<0.001). The cost per ICON point reduction is a simple and effective method of comparing cost-effectiveness between orthodontic practitioners in different countries.

References

  1. Q J Nucl Med. 2000 Jun;44(2):112-20 [PMID: 10967622]
  2. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000 Nov;6(4):431-9 [PMID: 11133126]
  3. J Orthod. 2000 Jun;27(2):175-80 [PMID: 10867074]
  4. J Orthod. 2000 Jun;27(2):149-62 [PMID: 10867071]
  5. Swed Dent J. 2001;25(4):137-44 [PMID: 11862915]
  6. Eur J Orthod. 1987 Nov;9(4):314-8 [PMID: 3480231]
  7. Br Dent J. 1991 Feb 9;170(3):107-12 [PMID: 2007067]
  8. Eur J Orthod. 1993 Feb;15(1):7-15 [PMID: 8436199]
  9. Br J Orthod. 1993 Nov;20(4):351-7 [PMID: 8286305]
  10. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Feb;9(2):113-20 [PMID: 10160090]
  11. Prim Dent Care. 1997 Sep;4(3):85-7 [PMID: 9526267]
  12. Br Dent J. 1999 Aug 28;187(4):211-6 [PMID: 10513115]
  13. World J Orthod. 2005 Summer;6(2):161-70 [PMID: 15952553]
  14. Eur J Orthod. 2006 Dec;28(6):520-8 [PMID: 17041085]
  15. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):146-57 [PMID: 17693363]
  16. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(7):679-80 [PMID: 11477972]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Child
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Direct Service Costs
Esthetics, Dental
Europe
European Union
Female
Health Care Costs
Humans
Male
Malocclusion
Middle Aged
Needs Assessment
Orthodontics, Corrective
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0perorthodonticpractitionersICONtreatmentcountriescostpointreductioncost-effectivenesspatientscentEuropeanBmedianyearseurostudy]seventwoLithuaniaSlovenia3treateddifferentinvestigated429consecutive[172male401257female599carried10specialist[twoCzechRepublicGermanyItalyLatviaNetherlandsagestart130minimum7maximum50rangemalocclusionsmajority97upperlowerfixedappliancesRealexchangeratescalculatedusingpurchasingpowerparityPPPindicatorsallowcross-bordercomparisonscostsIndexComplexityOutcomeNeedusedmeasureeffectivenesscomparecases5769variedgreatly217011662AnalysisvarianceTukeyposthoctestsshoweddifferencesstatisticallysignificantP<0001simpleeffectivemethodcomparingexploratorycare

Similar Articles

Cited By