Table 2.
Cost-effectiveness in the Base-Case and Sensitivity Analyses.
| Dentists with AI | Dentists without AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis | Cost (Euro) | Effectiveness (y) | Cost (Euro) | Effectiveness (y) | ICER (Euro/y) |
| Base case | 298 (244–367) | 64 (61–65) | 322 (257–394) | 62 (59–64) | −13.9 |
| High risk | 402 (323–478) | 61 (58–63) | 482 (390–570) | 58 (55–61) | −27.1 |
| If treating only restoratively | 468 (374–564) | 56 (54–60) | 321 (238–383) | 62 (60–64) | −27.8 |
| Dentists’ accuracy from Garcia-Cantu et al. (2020) | 298 (244–367) | 64 (61–65) | 329 (236–402) | 62 (59–64) | −15.5 |
| Low costs for AI (4.00 euro/analysis) | 296 (242–351) | 64 (61–65) | 322 (257–394) | 62 (59–64) | −12.8 |
| High costs for AI (12.00 euro/analysis) | 301 (246–370) | 64 (61–65) | 322 (257–394) | 62 (59–64) | −14.8 |
| 0% teeth replaced | 246 (218–275) | 64 (61–65) | 249 (203–284) | 62 (59–64) | −1.5 |
| 100% teeth replaced | 310 (252–378) | 64 (61–65) | 339 (262–406) | 62 (59–64) | −14.5 |
| Discounting rate 1% | 498 (394–627) | 64 (61–65) | 572 (407–701) | 62 (60–64) | −35.9 |
| Discounting rate 5% | 209 (175–244) | 64 (60–65) | 214 (164–255) | 62 (60–64) | −2.5 |
Mean and 2.5% to 97.5% percentiles are shown. The rationale behind modeling an upper/lower bound of AI costs of 4.00 and 8.00 euro is provided in more detail in the Appendix. The range of replaced teeth includes the minimum and maximum possible. The range of discounting rates follows recommendations for cost-effectiveness studies in our setting (IQWiG 2009).
AI, artificial intelligence; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.