What do systematic reviews say?

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• School dental screening programmes for oral health 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes
  As none of the studies reported cost-effectiveness, we could not assess the cost-benefit aspect of school dental screening.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Hyperbaric oxygen vs No HBO therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Cost effectiveness data were not presented but it was possible to extrapolate this.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) vs Implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO)

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: preprosthetic surgery versus dental implants 2002 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Cost-effectiveness (outcome 1.9): The cost-effectiveness data could not be extracted from the report as it was combined with a separate trial.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not report cost-effectiveness.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The study did not report cost-effectiveness.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Permanent and primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children younger than 6 years, OHPPs were associated with lower cost per DMFT/S (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age < 6 years
  OR 0.07 [0.02, 0.32]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

OHPPs were associated with a lower program cost per DMFT/S in about 97 of 100 programs (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=99%).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools
  OR 0.03 [0.01, 0.11]
  8 studies
  GRADE not reported

Personalised one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA

• One‐to‐one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Ramsay 2018 reported economic net benefits of OHA; measured, not synthesised or GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children aged 6 years and older, the cost-effectiveness estimate was extremely imprecise and not significant (OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 48704.6; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age >= 6 years
  OR 0.00 [0.00, 48704.6]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs placebo or usual care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Slow‐release fluoride devices for the control of dental decay 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The study reported no data on use of healthcare resources
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fee‐for‐service (FFS) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

• The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18 months
  ICER 0.10
  1 study · 68 participants
  Very low