Preventing and Treating Peri-Implantitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large number of treatments for peri-implantitis are available, but their cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of preventing and treating peri-implantitis. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed that followed each implant over 20 years. Supportive implant therapy (SIT) for managing peri-implant mucositis and preventing development of peri-implantitis was either provided or not. Risk of peri-implantitis was assumed to be affected by SIT and the patient's risk profile. If peri-implantitis occurred, 11 treatment strategies (non-surgical or surgical debridement alone or combined with adjunct therapies) were compared. Treatments and risk profiles determined disease progression. Modeling was performed based on systematically collected data. Primary outcomes were costs and proportion of lost implants, as assessed via Monte Carlo microsimulations. RESULTS: Not providing SIT and performing only non-surgical debridement was both least costly and least effective. The next best (more costly and effective) option was to provide SIT and perform surgical debridement (additional 0.89 euros per 1% fewer implants lost). The most effective option included bone grafts, membranes, and laser treatment (56 euros per 1%). For patients at high risk, the cost-effectiveness of SIT increased, whereas in low-risk groups, a cost-optimized strategy was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinical decision-making will be guided mainly by clinical condition, cost-effectiveness analyses might add another perspective. Based on these findings, an unambiguous comparative effectiveness ranking was not established. However, cost-effectiveness was predominantly determined by provision of SIT and initial treatment costs. Transferability of these findings to other healthcare systems needs further confirmation.

The cost-effectiveness of supportive periodontal care: a global perspective.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supportive periodontal care (SPC) provided in generalist and periodontal specialist practices under publicly subsidized or private dental care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: SPC cost data and the costs of replacing teeth were synthesized with estimates of the effectiveness of SPC in preventing attachment and tooth loss and adjusted for differences in clinician's time. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for both outcomes assuming a time horizon of 30 years. RESULTS: SPC in specialist periodontal practice provides improved outcomes but at higher costs than SPC provided by publicly subsidized or private systems. SPC in specialist periodontal practice is usually more cost-effective than in private dental practice. For private dental practices in Spain, United Kingdom and Australia, specialist SPC is cost-effective at modest values of attachment loss averted. Variation in the threshold arises primarily from clinician's time. CONCLUSION: SPC in specialist periodontal practice represents good value for money for patients (publicly subsidized or private) in the United Kingdom and Australia and in Spain if they place relatively modest values on avoiding attachment loss. For patients in Ireland, Germany, Japan and the United State, a higher valuation on avoiding attachment loss is needed to justify SPC in private or specialist practices.