{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03537906137184116, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02815884476534296, 'mean_word_length': 4.974137931034483, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Treatment effectiveness and economic evaluation of different pulp treatments of primary molars: a retrospective study


 Background This study focused on the primary molars meeting the indications partially overlapping of indirect pulp treatment (IPT), pulpotomy and pulpectomy.The aims were to compare the effectiveness and cost of these three treatments and apply cost-effectiveness analysis to provide guidance for physicians and parents.Materials and Methods The subjects were children whose primary molars were treated with IPT, pulpotomy or pulpectomy from May 2014 to May 2015 in the Peking University School of Stomatology. The general information, treatment information and total treatment cost of patients were collected. Tooth survival time, cost and survival time: cost ratio were compared between the IPT group and the pulpotomy group, and between the pulpotomy group and the pulpectomy group.Results The survival time: cost ratio of the IPT group was 3.56 ± 0.14 d/Yuan, which was significantly higher than the pulpotomy group (1.46 ± 0.056 d/Yuan; P < 0.001); which was in turn significantly higher than the pulpectomy group (0.89 ± 0.038 d/Yuan; P < 0.001).Conclusion IPT had the lowest survival time: cost ratio, indicating this procedure was more economical at a 2.5-3-year follow-up compared with pulpotomy. Pulpotomy was found to be more economical than pulpectomy.