RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Retaining and restoring severely compromised teeth with subcrestal defect extensions or removing and replacing them using implant-supported crowns (ISC) remains controversial, and economic analyses comparing both strategies remain scarce. We performed a cost-time analysis, comparing the expenditures for retaining "unrestorable" teeth using forced orthodontic extrusion and restoration (FOE) versus extraction and ISC, in a clinical prospective cohort study. METHODS: Forty-two patients (n = 21 per group) were enrolled from clinical routine at a university into this study. Direct medical and indirect costs (opportunity costs) were assessed for all relevant steps (initial care, active care, restorative care, supportive care) using the private payer's perspective in German healthcare based on a micro-costing approach and/or national fee items. Statistical comparison was performed with Mann-Whitney-U test. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for at least one year after initial treatment (n = 40). The drop-out rate was 5% (n = 2). Total direct medical costs were higher for ISC (median: 3439.05) than FOE (median: 1601.46) with p<0.001. We observed a higher number of appointments (p = 0.002) for ISC (median: 14.5) in comparison to FOE (median: 12), while cumulatively, FOE patients spent more time in treatment (median: 402.5 min) in comparison to ISC (median: 250 min) with p<0.001, resulting in comparable opportunity costs for both treatment groups (FOE: 304.50; ISC: 328.98). CONCLUSIONS: ISC generated higher costs than FOE. More in-depth and long-term exploration of cost-effectiveness is warranted. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ISCs were associated with higher initial medical costs and required more appointments than the restoration of severely compromised teeth after FOE. Treatment time was higher for patients with FOE, resulting in similar opportunity costs for both treatment approaches. Future research needs to investigate long-term cost-effectiveness.