Cost effectiveness modelling of a 'watchful monitoring strategy' for impacted third molars vs prophylactic removal under GA: an Australian perspective.

Objective To develop a national level cost model of both the direct and indirect costs of hospitalisations for impacted teeth in Australia. This model will then be used to compare a watchful monitoring strategy for impacted third molars versus prophylactic removal under GA, and calculate possible cost savings in the scenario where Australia would adopt guidelines comparable to the UK.Methods Western Australian real hospitalisation data for impacted/embedded teeth removal for 2008/2009 were extrapolated into a national, Australian-wide cost-distribution model for removal strategy. The components of a watchful monitoring strategy were calculated over a one-year, and 20-year period. Cost estimates for both strategies were then compared.Results The estimated number of hospitalisations for impacted teeth in Australia in 2008/2009 for the age group 15-34 years was 97,949. The estimated average annual direct cost was $350 million, the indirect cost was $181 million and total cost was $531 million. Individual cost of the watchful monitoring strategy over 20 years was $1,077, with an annual estimated cost of $53. The proposed guidelines would lead to an annual figure of 83,850 individuals avoiding hospitalisation and shifting to watchful monitoring strategy, and an annual reduction of costs ranging between $420-513 million.Conclusion With no evidence to support the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic wisdom teeth, a proposed watchful monitoring strategy is a more cost-effective alternative in the Australian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]