Cost-effectiveness of three different concepts for the rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles: Overdentures with 1 or 2 implant attachments and hybrid prosthesis on four implants.

BACKGROUND: There are scarce data regarding the combined assessment of the costs and effects of implant treatments for edentulous patients when multiple options are available. AIM: This randomised clinical trial aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of three different concepts for treatment: mandibular overdenture retained by a single (Group I; n = 11) or two implants (Group II; n = 13) and fixed hybrid prosthesis on four implants (Group III; n = 13). METHODS: Treatment effectiveness was measured as the 1-year before-after changes in patient satisfaction with the mandibular prosthesis. Costs were prospectively quantified from the perspective of the health provider, including all direct cost items attributed to the delivery of treatments and up to the 1-year follow-up, using a "bottom-up" costing estimation method. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction after treatment improved significantly for the three groups. The overall costs were R$ 2370.66, R$ 3185.21 and R$ 5739.52 for Groups I, II and III, respectively (P < .001). Analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios suggested that the overdentures retained by one or two implants were more cost-effective than the fixed implant treatment, considering the mean cost and effectiveness values and the ±20% one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the incremental costs for the fixed hybrid prosthesis, compared to the overdenture treatments, is not proportional to the respective gain in effectiveness. Therefore, although all treatment options had satisfactory outcomes, the use of implants to retain a mandibular overdenture, irrespective of the use of one or two implants, is more cost-effective than the fixed implant treatment for the edentulous mandible.

A parallel 3-group randomised clinical trial comparing different implant treatment options for the edentulous mandible: 1-year effects on dental patient-reported outcomes and chewing function.

OBJECTIVE: This parallel three-group randomised clinical trial compared the 1-year changes in dental patient-reported outcomes and chewing function associated with three treatment strategies for the edentulous mandible: single-implant (G-I; n = 11) or two-implant overdentures (G-II; n = 13), and fixed 4-implant complete denture (G-III; n = 13). METHODS: Complete denture (CD) treatment was provided to all participants and after an adaptation period, they were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups. Implants (Neodent TI Cortical, Brazil) were inserted using single-stage surgery and conventional loading. The mandibular dentures were incorporated into implants using specific retention systems and procedures according to the treatment group: O'ring/ball attachments for G-I and GII, and mini-conical abutments for G-III. Patients were assessed at baseline (CD stage) and up to 1-year after implant-retained prosthodontic treatment. Treatment outcomes included oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-Edent), satisfaction with the dentures and chewing function using a mixing ability test. Data analyses included pairwise comparison tests, estimates of effect sizes and regression analysis using Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: Results showed improvement in patient-reported outcomes (lower OHIP-Edent scores and higher satisfaction) and chewing function, compared to baseline. No significant between-group differences were found, although effect sizes were lower for G-III. CONCLUSIONS: All treatments improved the assessed outcomes after transition from the baseline condition. Findings suggest that simplified implant treatments for edentulous patients result in favourable outcomes and may be considered as suitable alternatives to more complex interventions.