Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implant-Supported Single Crown and Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in Türkiye.

OBJECTIVES: The most cost-effective option for replacing lost teeth is not evident because there is a dearth of evidence-based information on implant-supported single crowns versus tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. This study conducted the analysis of cost-effectiveness of implant-supported single crown and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses from a social perspective in Türkiye. METHODS: Costs were calculated in the analysis from a social perspective for 2021. Costs and quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) values were computed over a 20-year period in the study using the Markov model. The computed values were discounted by 5%. The results are presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. To assess the impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness analyses, a tornado diagram and Monte Carlo simulations were created. RESULTS: Throughout the 20-year time horizon, tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses cost $985.58 cumulatively, whereas implant-supported single crown cost $2161.64 (US $1 = 9.22 ₺ as of 15 October 2021). The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 1.333 per QAPY. Compared with the implant-supported single crown tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses, it offers a QAPY of 0.882 over a 20-year period, while costing an additional $1176.06. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the implant-supported single crown provided higher QAPY value but was costlier. When the research's findings are compared with the literature, it becomes clear that Türkiye has lower dental care expenses than most other nations.

Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of implants (Implant), insurance fixed dental prosthesis (IFDP) and private fixed dental prosthesis (PFDP) for a single intermediate missing tooth in the molar region to calculate the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). METHODS: The Markov model for cost-effectiveness analysis of the Implant, IFDP and PFDP was carried over maximum 30 years. The starting age for prosthetic treatment was decided to be 50 years. The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) was used for the indicator of effectiveness as an oral health QOL value. The GOHAI value was collected from patients who visited the Department of Oral Implantology of Osaka Dental University between September 2014 and March 2016. In addition, the Tornado diagram was drawn and Monte-Carlo simulations made for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: From the analysis of survey of QOL of each stage and treatment, the selection of an Implant led to a higher QOL value than FDP. However, the estimated 30-year cost for IFDP was lower than Implant. It also became evident that PFDP had an extended dominated condition compared with IFDP and Implants. The ICER on the Implant versus IFDP was €1423.00. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a better of QOL value can be obtained from an Implant than from IFDP or PFDP. An evaluation form using an indexed scale for oral health-related aspects needs to be developed that is also consistent as an indicator of effect.

A Systematic Review of the Survival of Teeth Intentionally Replanted with a Modern Technique and Cost-effectiveness Compared with Single-tooth Implants.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the survival rate of teeth intentionally replanted with a modern technique and to compare their cost-effectiveness with that of single-tooth implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched for articles that met inclusion criteria published between January 1966 and February 2017. Overall survival rate of intentional replantation was determined through a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Cost of different procedures was determined from the 2016 American Dental Association Dental Fees Survey. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis resulted in a survival rate of 89.1% (95% confidence interval, 83.8%-94.4%). Compared with a single-tooth implant, intentional replantation was more cost-effective even when custom post/core and crown are also needed. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis revealed a high survival rate for intentional replantation. Although the survival rate of implants is higher, intentional replantation is a more cost-effective treatment modality. Intentional replantation should be a treatment option discussed with patients, especially because an implant can still be placed if intentional replantation is unsuccessful.

The Up-to-14-Year Survival and Complication Burden of 256 TiUnite Implants Supporting One-Piece Cast Abutment/Metal-Ceramic Implant-Supported Single Crowns.

PURPOSE: To assess the estimated cumulative survival (ECS) and explore the technical and biologic complications of 256 TiUnite implants (Nobel Biocare) supporting one-piece cast abutment/metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) in situ for up to 14 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective sequentially recruited cohort of 207 patients received 256 metal-ceramic ISCs on TiUnite implants between 2001 and 2014. All but 24 patients with 27 crowns were clinically evaluated between January 2014 and April 2015 in conjunction with or in addition to their tailored maintenance program. Radiographs were obtained, and any previously recorded treatments associated with the crowns were tabulated. The ECS and standard errors were calculated with the life table actuarial method and Greenwood's formula, respectively. The log rank test was applied to assess differences between anterior and posterior crowns. Complication incidence, severity, and economic burden, measured in time/cost accounting units (TAUs), were tallied and compared descriptively. Independent groups were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test and related groups with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. RESULTS: The mean clinical service time of the crowns was 5.61 years (44 ≥ 10 years). The 14-year ECS was 95.95% ± 3.20% with no significant difference between anterior and posterior prostheses. Only seven implants lost marginal bone ≥ one thread from the time of crown insertion. There were 30 nonterminal complications (16 biologic, 14 mechanical). The associated economic burden was low (n = 35 TAUs). CONCLUSION: High gold-alloy one-piece cast abutment/metal-ceramic ISCs on TiUnite implants exhibited excellent longevity and few complications over 14 years.

Single implant and crown versus fixed partial denture: A cost-benefit, patient-centred analysis.

Single implants and their crowns have high survival rates that exceed the survival rates for fixed partial dentures on teeth and most but not all publications have determined single implants are more cost-effective than 3-unit fixed partial dentures. Both initial root canal treatment and retreatment are more cost-effective than tooth extraction and rehabilitation with a single implant and crown.

An Up-to-15-Year Comparison of the Survival and Complication Burden of Three-Unit Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Implant-Supported Single Crowns.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the outcomes and economic complication burden of three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (TFDPs) and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) provided to a sequential cohort in a specialist prosthodontic practice over a 15-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sequential patients requiring replacement of a single missing tooth between 1996 and 2010 with a metal-ceramic three-unit TFDP (n = 145 patients, n = 174 prostheses) or ISC (n = 174 patients, n = 220 prostheses) were included. Prostheses subjectively judged at insertion to have an unfavorable 10-year prognosis (17 TFDPs, 0 ISCs) were removed from statistical analyses. The estimated cumulative survival (ECS) was calculated with the life table actuarial method and standard errors calculated with the Greenwood formula. Differences in outcomes between all prostheses and those replacing only anterior or only posterior teeth were assessed with the log rank test. Complication incidence, severity, and economic burden, measured in time/cost accounting units (TAUs), were tallied and compared descriptively. RESULTS: The 15-year ECS did not differ for 112 TFDPs (92.75% ± 3.28%) and 81 ISCs (95.95% ± 2.92%) replacing posterior teeth. However, the 15-year ECS was significantly greater for 139 ISCs (93.33% ± 6.44%) than for 45 TFDPs (82.82% ± 6.50%) replacing anterior teeth. The economic burden of nonterminal complications for both prostheses was low (mean = 0.3 and 0.2 TAUs per prosthesis for TFDPs and ISCs, respectively). This equated to 3 TAUs/100 years in clinical service and 4 TAUs/100 years in clinical service for the TFDPs and ISCs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The survival of three-unit TFDPs and ISCs over 15 years was not statistically different when replacing posterior teeth, but ISCs survived significantly better when replacing anterior teeth. The complication rates of the TFDPs and ISCs were similar, but the economic burden for the TFDPs was greater.

Cost estimation of single-implant treatment in the periodontally healthy patient after 16-22 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Costs for single-implant treatment are mostly described for the initial treatment. Information on the additional cost related to aftercare is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To make an estimation of complication costs of single implants in periodontally healthy patients after 16-22 years and to compare costs for various prosthetic designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a single implant were recalled for a clinical examination and file investigation. Prosthetic designs included single-tooth (ST) and CeraOne (CO) abutments supporting a porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-ceramic (CER), or gold-acrylic (ACR) crown. Costs related to failures or technical, biologic, and aesthetic complications were retrieved from patient's records. Total and yearly additional complication costs were calculated as a percentage relative to the initial cost. Chair time needed to solve the complication was recorded and prosthetic designs were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Fifty patients with 59 surviving implants were clinically investigated. Additional complication costs after a mean follow-up of 18.5 years amounted to 23% (range 0-110%) of the initial treatment cost. In total, 39% of implants presented with no costs, whereas 22% and 8% encountered additional costs over 50% and 75%, respectively. In 2%, the complication costs exceeded the initial cost. The mean yearly additional cost was 1.2% (range 0-6%) and mean complication time per implant was 67 min (range 0-345 min). Differences between prosthetic designs (CO, ST-PFM, ST-ACR) were statistically significant for total cost (P = 0.011), yearly cost (P = 0.023), and time (P = 0.023). Pairwise comparison revealed significant lower costs for CO compared with ST-ACR reconstructions. CONCLUSION: Patients should be informed about additional costs related to complications with single implants. The mean additional cost spent on complications was almost one-quarter of the initial treatment price. A majority of implants presented with lower additional costs, whereas the highest complication costs were related to a smaller group with 22% of the implants needing more than half of the initial cost for complication management. Expenses were significantly different for various prosthetic designs.

Randomized controlled multicentre study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1: demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading.

AIM: To test whether or not the use of short dental implants (6 mm) results in an implant survival rate similar to long implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus grafting. METHODS: This multicentre study enrolled 101 patients with a posterior maxillary bone height of 5-7 mm. Patients randomly received short implants (6 mm) (group short) or long implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft). Six months later, implants were loaded with single crowns and patients re-examined at 1 year of loading. Outcomes included treatment time, price calculations, safety, patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile) and implant survival. Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach. RESULTS: In 101 patients, 137 implants were placed. Mean surgical time was 52.6 min. (group short) and 74.6 min. (group graft). Mean costs amounted to 941EUR (group short) and 1946EUR (group graft). Mean severity scores between suture removal and baseline revealed a statistically significant decrease for most OHIP dimensions in group graft only. At 1 year, 97 patients with 132 implants were re-examined. The implant survival rate was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities can be considered suitable for implant therapy in the atrophied posterior maxilla. Short implants may be more favourable regarding short-term patient morbidity, treatment time and price.

Why guided when freehand is easier, quicker, and less costly?

Computer-assisted implant planning and subsequent production of a surgical template based on this plan has gained attention because it provides restoratively driven esthetics, patient comfort, satisfaction, and the option of flapless surgery and immediate restoration. However, it adds expense and requires more time. Another significant but not so apparent advantage may be improved survival and success over freehand techniques in types III and IV bone. This retrospective analysis was undertaken to examine that possibility. It reports 1-year outcome for 80 implants in 27 consecutively presenting patients treated over a 7-year period using computer-assisted techniques across all bone qualities in commonly encountered treatment indications in private practice. Implants were placed to support single teeth, small bridges, and complete arch restorations in exposed or immediately restored applications, based on primary stability as determined by insertion torque, resonance frequency analysis, and Periotest. For the 80 implants supporting 35 restorations, the median observation period is 2.66 years; 73 implants supporting prostheses in 22 patients had readable radiographs at 1 year. There was a 1-year overall implant survival and a success rate of 100%. Radiographic analysis demonstrated the change in bone level from the platform at 1-year is less than 2 mm. Intra-operative median measurements of primary stability were insertion torque, 40 Ncm; resonance frequency, 76 ISQ; and Periotest, -3. All intra-operative measurements were consistent for acceptable primary stability regardless of bone density. Restoratively driven diagnosis and precision planning and initial fit were possible with computer-assisted techniques resulting in the achievement of high primary stability, even in areas of less dense bone. The ability to plan implant position, drill sequence, and implant design on the basis of predetermined bone density gives the practitioner enhanced pretreatment information which can lead to improved outcome.

Agenesis of maxillary lateral incisor and tooth replacement: cost-effectiveness of different treatment alternatives.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of five treatment alternatives for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis where space maintenance and tooth replacement are indicated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following treatment modalities were considered: single-tooth implant-supported crown, resin-bonded fixed partial denture (FPD), cantilever FPD, full-coverage FPD, and autotransplantation. The cost-effectiveness for each treatment modality was determined as the ratio of the outcome of each modality divided by the cost. Direct costs, clinical and laboratory, were calculated based on national fee schedules and converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rates. Outcomes were based on the most recently published long-term (10-year) survival rates. Sensitivity analyses were carried out, testing the robustness of the cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The five treatment modalities ranked in the following order from most to least cost-effective: autotransplantation, cantilever FPDs, resin-bonded FPDs, single-tooth implants and implant-supported crowns, and full-coverage FPDs. Sensitivity analysis illustrated that the cost-effectiveness analysis was reliable in identifying autotransplantation as the most and full-coverage FPDs as the least cost-effective treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: When replacing a missing maxillary lateral incisor, the most costeffective, long-term treatment modality is autotransplantation, whereas the least cost-effective is full-coverage FPDs. However, factors such as patient age, the state of the dentition, occlusion, and tooth conservation should also influence the choice of restoration.

Economic evaluation of single-tooth replacement: dental implant versus fixed partial denture.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective of a dental implant compared with a three-unit tooth-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) for the replacement of a single tooth in 2010. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period. The survival rates of single-tooth implants and FPDs were extracted from a meta-analysis of single-arm studies. Medical costs included initial treatment costs, maintenance costs, and costs to treat complications. Patient surveys were used to obtain the costs of the initial single-tooth implant or FPD. Maintenance costs and costs to treat complications were based on surveys of seven clinical experts at dental clinics or hospitals. Transportation costs were calculated based on the number of visits for implant or FPD treatment. Patient time costs were estimated using the number of visits and time required, hourly wage, and employment rate. Future costs were discounted by 5% to convert to present values. RESULTS: The results of a 10-year period model showed that a single dental implant cost US $261 (clinic) to $342 (hospital) more than an FPD and had an average survival rate that was 10.4% higher. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $2,514 in a clinic and $3,290 in a hospital for a prosthesis in situ for 10 years. The sensitivity analysis showed that initial treatment costs and survival rate influenced the cost-effectiveness. If the cost of an implant were reduced to 80% of the current cost, the implant would become the dominant intervention. CONCLUSION: Although the level of evidence for effectiveness is low, and some aspects of single-tooth implants or FPDs, such as satisfaction, were not considered, this study will help patients requiring single-tooth replacement to choose the best treatment option.

Incorporating severity and risk as factors to the Fardal cost-effectiveness model to create a cost-benefit model for periodontal treatment.

BACKGROUND: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation. METHODS: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk. RESULTS: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $1,405 to $4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $4,787. CONCLUSION: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.

Cost-effectiveness of anterior implants versus fixed dental prostheses.

For the restoration of an anterior missing tooth, implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) are indicated, but it is not clear which type of restoration is more cost-effective. A self-selected trial was performed with 15 patients with ISCs and 11 with FDPs. Patient preferences were recorded with visual analog scales before treatment, 1 month following restoration, and then annually. Quality-adjusted tooth years (QATYs) were estimated by considering the type of reconstruction for replacing the missing tooth and its effect on the adjacent teeth. A stochastic cost-effectiveness model was developed using Monte Carlo simulation. The expected costs and QATYs were summarized in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. ISC was the dominant strategy, with a QATY increase of 0.01 over 3 years and 0.04 over 10 years with a higher probability of being cost-effective. While both treatment options provided satisfactory long-term results from the patient's perspective, the lower initial costs, particularly laboratory fees, were responsible for the dominance of ISCs over FDPs.

[Aftercare for durability and profitability of single-unit and multi-unit fixed dental prostheses]. / Nazorg voor dutrzaamheid en profijtelijkheid van kronen en bruggen.

An important aim ofa treatment with single-unit and multi-unit fixed dental prostheses is a durable and profitable treatment outcome. That requires aftercare, too. First, the frequency of routine oral examinations should be assessed, using an individual risk profile. The objectives of the routine oral examinations are the prevention and, when necessary, the treatment of pathological conditions and complications. With regard to prevention, attention should be paid to information and instruction, oral biofilm and calculus, non-functional activities, hard tooth tissues, periodontal and peri-implant tissues, and saliva. Subsequently, it can be determined whether the intended durability and profitability have been achieved or can still be achieved, whether or not through indicated adjustments. Special attention should be paid to endodontically treated teeth. Restorative, repair or replacement treatments may be indicated in case ofcomplications, such as loose single- or multi-unitfixed dental prosthesis, fracture of a fixed dental prosthesis unit, lost tooth pulp vitality, tooth root fracture, and implant or implant abutment problems.

Evaluating the health economic implications and cost-effectiveness of dental implants: a literature review.

PURPOSE: To review the available literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental implant-supported or -retained prostheses versus tooth-supported fixed partial denture restorations or mucosa-borne conventional complete or partial dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted, restricted to studies published in English between November 2000 and November 2010. The searches returned a total of 381 unique hits, and a total of 14 studies on the long-term costs or cost-effectiveness of dental implants were included in the final review. A true systemic review was complicated by the heterogeneity of the conducted studies. RESULTS: For single-tooth replacement, dental implants were generally either cost saving or cost-effective in comparison with tooth replacement using traditional fixed dental prostheses. For patients with mandibular edentulism, dental implants were associated with higher initial costs in comparison with conventional mucosa-borne dentures. However, the consensus among most studies was that, over the long term, dental implants represent a cost-effective treatment option. Additionally, patient acceptance, satisfaction, and willingness to pay for dental implants were high, particularly in elderly edentulous patients. A trend toward improved overall health and decreased health care costs was also reported. CONCLUSIONS: For single-tooth replacement, a single implant was a cost-effective treatment option in comparison with a traditional three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. For the replacement of multiple teeth, dental implants (fixed or removable prostheses) were associated with higher initial costs but better improvements in oral health-related quality of life compared with other treatment options.

Implants versus short-span fixed bridges: survival, complications, patients' benefits. A systematic review on economic aspects.

AIM: To systematically evaluate the existing evidence to answer the focused question: For a patient with a single tooth to be replaced, is the implant crown, based on economic considerations, preferred to a conventional fixed partial denture? MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed MEDLINE, Cochrane-Central and Embase databases were searched using an extended list of search terms related to economics, which were then combined with the terms "prosthodontics" and "dental implant." RESULTS: The combined search for the "economic terms" and "prosthodontics" revealed 904 titles. The combination with "dental implants" revealed 2039 titles. Based on the abstracts, 73 full text publications were evaluated and data comparing outcomes with FDPs and implant crowns were retrieved from 26 publications. Initial costs for single implant crowns and FDPs on teeth were similar, but varied between tariff systems. The conditions of neighboring teeth and of the alveolar ridge defined the complexity (costs) of the treatment. Failure rates reported with single implant crowns and FDPs on teeth were similar. The long-term financial economic comparison showed a similar outcome for single implant crowns and FDPs. CONCLUSION: Other factors than costs and survival rates such as patient or provider reported factors may be more decisive when choosing between implant crowns and FDPs on teeth. The utility for the patient to keep healthy adjacent teeth unprepared makes the implant crown more economic.

[Treatment of a single-tooth space in the occlusal system]. / Behandeling van een enkelvoudig diasteem in het occlusiesysteem.

The space created by the absence of 1 not-free-ending tooth in an occlusal system can be indicated as a single-tooth space. For treating a single-tooth space, several options are available to restore the functions of the occlusal system. Feasible options are a resin-bonded fixed prosthesis, a conventional fixed prosthesis, and an implant-supported restoration. Implant-supported restorations have a good prognosis, high patient satisfaction, and the advantage that adjacent teeth are not involved in the treatment. Anxiety about surgical treatment, the width of the single-tooth space, and financial aspects may be reasons not to consider an implant-supported restoration as first-choice treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of endodontic molar retreatment compared with fixed partial dentures and single-tooth implant alternatives.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most challenging situations in dentistry is a failed root canal treatment case. Should a failed root canal-treated tooth be retreated nonsurgically or surgically, or should the tooth be extracted and replaced with an implant-supported restoration or fixed partial denture? These four treatment alternatives were compared from the perspective of cost-effectiveness on the basis of the current best available evidence. METHODS: The costs of the four major treatment modalities were calculated using the national fee averages from the 2009 American Dental Association survey of dental fees. The outcome data of all treatment modalities were retrieved from meta-analyses after electronic and manual searches were undertaken in the database from MEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus up to April 2010. The treatment strategy model was built and run with TreeAge decision analysis software (TreeAge Software, Inc, Williamstown, MA). RESULTS: Endodontic microsurgery was the most cost-effective approach followed by nonsurgical retreatment and crown, then extraction and fixed partial denture, and finally extraction and single implant-supported restoration. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that endodontic microsurgery was the most cost-effective among all the treatment modalities for a failed endodontically treated first molar. A single implant-supported restoration, despite its high survival rate, was shown to be the least cost-effective treatment option based on current fees.