The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The analysis of cost-effectiveness of implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis

  • Chun, June Sang (School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Har, Alix (Northwestern University) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Pil (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lim, Hoi-Jeong (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2015.11.26
  • Accepted : 2016.02.03
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study conducted an analysis of cost-effectiveness of the implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis (CFDP) from a single treatment perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Markov model for cost-effectiveness analysis of the implant and CFDP was carried out over maximum 50 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by the 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were also presented. The results from meta-analysis studies were used to determine the survival rates and complication rates of the implant and CFDP. Data regarding the cost of each treatment method were collected from University Dental Hospital and Statistics Korea for 2013. Using the results of the patient satisfaction survey study, quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) of the implant and CFDP strategy was evaluated with annual discount rate. RESULTS. When only the direct cost was considered, implants were more cost-effective when the willingness to pay (WTP) was more than 10,000 won at $10^{th}$ year after the treatment, and more cost-effective regardless of the WTP from $20^{th}$ year after the prosthodontic treatment. When the indirect cost was added to the direct cost, implants were more cost-effective only when the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the $10^{th}$ year after the prosthodontic treatment, more than 35,000 won at the $20^{th}$ year after prosthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION. The CFDP was more cost-effective unless the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the $10^{th}$ year after prosthodontic treatment. But the cost-effectivenss tendency changed from CFDP to implant as time passed.

Keywords

References

  1. Hebel K, Gajjar R, Hofstede T. Single-tooth replacement:bridge vs. implant-supported restoration. J Can Dent Assoc 2000;66:435-8.
  2. Garcia LT, Cronin RJ Jr. The partially edentulous patient:fixed prosthodontics or implant treatment options. Tex Dent J 2003;120:1148-56.
  3. Pennington MW, Vernazza CR, Shackley P, Armstrong NT, Whitworth JM, Steele JG. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment using conventional approaches versus replacement with an implant. Int Endod J 2009;42:874-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01582.x
  4. Kim SG, Solomon C. Cost-effectiveness of endodontic molar retreatment compared with fixed partial dentures and single-tooth implant alternatives. J Endod 2011;37:321-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.035
  5. Bouchard P, Renouard F, Bourgeois D, Fromentin O, Jeanneret MH, Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modeling of dental implant vs. bridge. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:583-7.
  6. Cicciu M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cementedretained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol 2008;57:167-79.
  7. Cicciu M, Bramanti E, Matacena G, Guglielmino E, Risitano G. FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:817-25.
  8. Jacobson JJ, Maxson BB, Mays K, Kowalski CJ. A utility analysis of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7:381-8.
  9. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993;13:322-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300409
  10. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:2-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x
  11. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Bragger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:667-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01120.x
  12. Peter M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health: A Practical Approach. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, editor. San Francisco. John Wiley & Sons.; 2008.
  13. Al-Quran FA, Al-Ghalayini RF, Al-Zu'bi BN. Single-tooth replacement:factors affecting different prosthetic treatment modalities. BMC Oral Health 2011;11:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-11-34
  14. Meyenberg KH, Imoberdorf MJ. The aesthetic challenges of single tooth replacement: a comparison of treatment alternatives. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1997;9:727-35.
  15. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Costeffectiveness in health and medicine. New York; Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 91-2.
  16. Andrea S, Stefano T, Francesca C, Marco R. Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons.; 2004.

Cited by

  1. The cost-effectiveness of oral health interventions: A systematic review of cost-utility analyses pp.03015661, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12336
  2. Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis vol.18, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0604-5
  3. Comparative study of the usability of two software programs for visualization and analysis of digital orthodontic models vol.12, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2018.033
  4. Effects of D-arginine on Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilm vol.62, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.19-0075
  5. Ethische Herausforderungen in der Implantologie vol.13, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12285-020-00250-w
  6. Is there a relationship between general and oral health‐related quality of life in partially edentulous patients before and after implant treatment? A quasi‐experimental study vol.31, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13593
  7. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of two attachment systems for mandibular overdenture vol.31, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13599
  8. Cost-utility analysis of an implant treatment in dentistry vol.21, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01790-y