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.

Oral health-related quality of life in patients with implant treatment

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly commonly used as a method of evaluating treatments. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate implant treatment from the perspective of patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were 804 patients who visited the Department of Oral Implantology at Osaka Dental University. The participants were categorized into a pre-implant group and a post-implant group. They were further categorized into five subgroups based on the number of occlusal supports provided by the remaining teeth according to the Eichner classification. The participants answered a basic questionnaire and the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) questionnaire, an oral health-related quality of life (QOL) scale. GOHAI scores were compared according to the number of occlusal supports within each group and between the two groups. RESULTS: The results revealed a significant difference in terms of the number of occlusal supports within the pre-implant group; GOHAI scores decreased as the number of occlusal supports decreased (P .05). GOHAI scores significantly improved in both pre- and post-implant groups in all occlusal support subgroups (P < .001). CONCLUSION: GOHAI scores decrease as occlusal support is lost. However, implant treatment performed in areas of loss improves the GOHAI score when occlusal support is restored.