Cost-effectiveness of AI for caries detection: randomized trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
Published on: February 23, 2024
Falk Schwendicke1, Sarah Mertens1, Anselmo Garcia Cantu1
1Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Objectives:
We assessed the cost-effectiveness of AI-supported detection of proximal caries in a randomized controlled clustered cross-over superiority trial.
Methods:
Twenty-three dentists were sampled to assess 20 bitewings; 10 were randomly evaluated supported by an AI-based software (dentalXrai Pro 1.0.4, dentalXrai Ltd, Berlin, Germany) and the other 10 without AI support. The reference test had been established by four independent experts and an additional review. We evaluated the proportion of true and false positive and negative detections and the treatment decisions assigned to each detection (non-invasive, micro-invasive, invasive). Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a mixed public-private-payer perspective in German healthcare. Using the accuracy and treatment decision data from the trial, a Markov simulation model was populated and posterior permanent teeth in initially 31-years old individuals followed over their lifetime. The model allowed extrapolation from the initial detection and therapy to treatment success, re-treatments and, eventually, tooth loss and replacement, capturing long-term effectiveness (tooth retention) and costs (cumulative in Euro). Costs were estimated using the German public and private fee catalogues. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were used and incremental cost-effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay ceiling thresholds assessed.
Results:
In the trial, AI-supported detection was significantly more sensitive than detection without AI. However, in the AI group, lesions were more often treated invasively. As a result, AI and no AI showed identical effectiveness (tooth retention for a mean (2.5-97.5%) 49 (48-51) years) and nearly identical costs (AI: 330 (250-409) Euro, no AI: 330 (248-410) Euro). 41% simulations found AI and 43% no AI to be more cost-effective. The resulting cost-effectiveness remained uncertain regardless of a payer's willingness-to-pay.
Conclusions:
Higher accuracy of AI did not lead to higher cost-effectiveness, as more invasive treatment approaches generated costs and diminished possible effectiveness advantages.
Clinical Significance:
The cost-effectiveness of AI could be improved by supporting not only caries detection, but also subsequent management.
