General dental practitioners' fees for root canal treatment, coronal restoration and follow‐on treatment in the adult population in Sweden: A 10‐year follow‐up of data from the Swedish Dental Register

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo analyze the accumulated fees connected with root filling, permanent coronal restoration and follow‐on treatment charged by Swedish dentists over a 10–11‐year follow‐up period. Furthermore, analyzing these fees with reference to the type of restoration, tooth group, and the root‐filled teeth which survived compared to those requiring extraction.Material and MethodsIn 2009, the data register of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency recorded a total of 215,611 teeth as root‐filled. The accumulated fees for each tooth encompassed the following interventions: initial root filling, coronal restorations, and follow‐up treatments during the designated period. The outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics, including t tests and one‐way analysis of variance. The fees are presented in Euros (€1 = SEK 8.94).ResultsThe total accumulated fees for root fillings amounted to 72 million Euros: the mean fee per root filled tooth was €333.6. The total mean fee over a 10–11‐year period, comprising root canal treatment, coronal restorations, and any follow‐up treatments, was €923.4. Root‐filled teeth with indirect restorations presented a higher mean fee (€1 279.3) compared to those with direct restorations (€829.4) or those without specified restorations (€832.7; p < .001). Moreover, molars presented a significantly higher mean fee (€966.4) compared to premolars (€882.8) and anterior teeth (€891.3; p < .001). Lastly, the mean fee for extracted teeth was €1225.3, which was higher compared to those who survived the follow‐up period (€848.0; p < .001).ConclusionsFees charged by general dental practitioners for root‐filled teeth accumulate over time, probably due to the need for further treatment of the tooth. The total mean fee was significantly higher for molars and root‐filled teeth with indirect restorations. However, an analysis of the total costs would require prospective clinical cost‐effectiveness studies.