Long-term treatment costs for aggressive periodontitis in a German population.

AIM: This study assessed the long-term annual costs for treating aggressive periodontitis (AgP) patients. METHODS: A cohort of compliant AgP patients was retrospectively evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planing, open flap debridement, root resections, but not pocket elimination or regenerative surgery) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, including also costs for restorative, endodontic, prosthetic and surgical treatments) were estimated from a mixed payer perspective in Germany. The impact of tooth- and patient-level factors on annual costs was assessed using mixed modelling. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (mean [SD] age: 35.2/6.8 years), with 26.5 (4.0) teeth (38% with bone loss >50%) were treated. Mean follow-up (retention) time was 16.9 (5.4) years. Total treatment costs per patient and per tooth were 6,998 (3,807) and 267 (148) Euro, respectively. Approximately 87% of the costs were generated during SPT, 13% during APT. Annual patient- and tooth-level costs were 536 (209) and 20.1 (65.0) Euro, respectively. Annual tooth-level costs were significantly increased in patients aged 34 years or older, male patients, former or current smokers, teeth with furcation involvement degree II/III, and bone loss 50%-70%. CONCLUSIONS: Annual treatment costs for treating AgP patients were similar to those found for chronic periodontitis patients. Certain parameters might predict costs.

Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatments.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow, debridement combined with PerioChip, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.

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.

Retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement: a cost-effectiveness comparison of different strategies.

AIM: The comparative cost-effectiveness of retaining or replacing molars with furcation involvement (FI) remains unclear. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments versus replacing them via implant-supported crowns (ISCs). METHODS: Using tooth-level Markov models, we followed a molar with FI degree I or II/III in a 50-year-old patient over his lifetime. Tooth-retaining periodontal treatments (scaling and root planing, flap debridement, root resection, guided-tissue regeneration, tunnelling) were compared with tooth replacement using ISCs. We analysed costs, time until first re-treatment and total time of tooth or implant retention. The model adopted a private payer perspective within German health care. Transition probabilities were calculated based on current evidence. Monte-Carlo microsimulations were performed, and robustness of the model and effects of heterogeneity assessed using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Despite requiring re-treatment later than other strategies, ISCs were the most costly therapy. Compared with most periodontal treatments, ISCs were retained for shorter time than natural teeth regardless of the degree of FI, the patients' age or risk profile (smoker/non-smoker). CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data and within its limitations, our study indicates that retaining FI molars via periodontal treatments might be more cost-effective than replacing them via ISCs. Changes in the underlying evidence or the setting might alter these results.

Economics of periodontal care: market trends, competitive forces and incentives.

The adoption of new technologies for the treatment of periodontitis and the replacement of teeth has changed the delivery of periodontal care. The objective of this review was to conduct an economic analysis of a mature periodontal service market with a well-developed workforce, including general dentists, dental hygienists and periodontists. Publicly available information about the delivery of periodontal care in the USA was used. A strong trend toward increased utilization of nonsurgical therapy and decreased utilization of surgical periodontal therapy was observed. Although periodontal surgery remained the domain of periodontists, general dentists had taken over most of the nonsurgical periodontal care. The decline in surgical periodontal therapy was associated with an increased utilization of implant-supported prosthesis. Approximately equal numbers of implants were surgically placed by periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and general dentists. Porter's framework of the forces driving industry competition was used to analyze the role of patients, dental insurances, general dentists, competitors, entrants, substitutes and suppliers in the periodontal service market. Estimates of out-of-pocket payments of self-pay and insured patients, reimbursement by dental insurances and providers' earnings for various periodontal procedures and alternative treatments were calculated. Economic incentives for providers may explain some of the observed shifts in the periodontal service market. Given the inherent uncertainty about treatment outcomes in dentistry, which makes clinical judgment critical, providers may yield to economic incentives without jeopardizing their ethical standards and professional norms. Although the economic analysis pertains to the USA, some considerations may also apply to other periodontal service markets.

Low-cost periodontal therapy.

Periodontitis is a complex infectious disease that affects low-income individuals disproportionately. Periodontitis is associated with specific bacterial species and herpesviruses, and successful prevention and treatment of the disease is contingent upon effective control of these pathogens. This article presents an efficacious, highly safe, minimally invasive, practical and low-cost periodontal therapy that involves professional and patient-administered mechanical therapy and antimicrobial agents. The major components are scaling for calculus removal, periodontal pocket irrigation with potent antiseptics, and treatment with systemic antibiotics for advanced disease. Povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite have all the characteristics for becoming the first-choice antiseptics in the management of periodontal diseases. Both agents show excellent antibacterial and antiviral properties, are readily available throughout the world, have been safely used in periodontal therapy for decades, offer significant benefits for individuals with very limited financial resources, and are well accepted by most dental professionals and patients. Four per cent chlorhexidine applied with a toothbrush to the most posterior part to the tongue dorsum can markedly reduce or eliminate halitosis in most individuals. Systemic antibiotics are used to treat periodontopathic bacteria that are not readily reached by topical therapy, such as pathogens within gingival tissue, within furcation defects, at the base of periodontal pockets, and on the tongue, tonsils and buccal mucosae. Valuable antibiotic therapies are amoxicillin-metronidazole (250 mg of amoxicillin and 250 mg of metronidazole, three times daily for 8 days) for young and middle-aged patients, and ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (500 mg of each, twice daily for 8 days) for elderly patients and for patients in developing countries who frequently harbor enteric rods subgingivally. Scaling to remove dental calculus and the prudent use of inexpensive antimicrobial agents can significantly retard or arrest progressive periodontitis in the great majority of patients.