Immediate Vacuum Formed Overdenture for a Pediatric Patient with Ectodermal Dysplasia.

Restoring the dental and facial esthetics in a growing patient with ectodermal dysplasia (ED) is fundamental to improve psychosocial issues, esthetics, and function. The purpose of this clinical report was to present a simple, fast, and cost-effective technique to re-establish a pleasant smile of an eight-year-old male patient with hypohydrotic ED. A vacuum-formed overdenture prosthesis is described, which is recommended as an immediate interim restorative treatment in the maxillary arch with excellent stability and retention.

Mini-Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis alongside a Randomized Trial.

Mandibular overdentures retained by 2 conventional implants have been considered the standard of care for complete edentulism, according to the McGill and York consensuses. However, many patients refuse this treatment modality due to the associated costs and postsurgical discomfort. Mini-implants have the chance to overcome these limitations due to their potentially lower costs and a relatively uncomplicated surgical technique. This study compared treatment costs and incremental cost-effectiveness following the insertion of mini-implants (2 or 4) or 2 standard-size implants for the retention of mandibular overdentures, by means of a randomized clinical trial. In total, 120 edentulous participants (mean age 59.5 ± 8.5 y) were randomly allocated into 3 groups according to treatment received: 4 mini-implants (group 1), 2 mini-implants (group 2), or 2 standard implants (group 3). Treatment costs and outcomes (Oral Health Impact Profile for Edentulous [OHIP-EDENT] and satisfaction with the dentures) were evaluated after 6 mo. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention in terms of cost per 1-point change in patient outcomes. A 1-way sensitivity analysis was performed considering a 95% confidence interval variation in cost and outcome parameters, represented in tornado diagrams. Overall treatment cost was the lowest for group 2 (average cost: US$318.08), followed by group 1 (US$510.75) and group 3 (US$566.13). Groups did not differ in terms of the length of unscheduled appointments and time spent by participants. In summary, our findings indicate that mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants are less costly compared to 2-implant overdentures. Despite the lower costs of overdentures retained by 2 mini-implants, those retained by 4 mini-implants showed further improvement in patient-reported outcomes and reduced costs compared to standard implants ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This report shows that mini-implant retained overdentures are less costly than overdenture treatment on 2 standard-sized implants. Treatment with 2 mini-implants is an effective procedure to substantially save resources, whereas treatment with 4 mini-implants provides better results from a patient perspective combined with slightly reduced costs compared to the treatment with 2 standard implants. Therefore, mini-implant overdentures may be effective and more accessible than overdentures on 2 standard-size implants for those with limited incomes.

Economic Evaluation of Implant-Supported Overdentures in Edentulous Patients: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Edentulous patients benefit significantly from implant-supported overdenture prostheses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implant-supported overdentures (IODs) for edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was limited to studies written in English and included an electronic and manual search through MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to November 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1966 to November 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to November 2015), and PubMed (to November 2015). Two investigators extracted the data and assessed the studies independently. No meta-analysis was conducted due to the high heterogeneity within the literature. RESULTS: Of the initial 583 selected articles, 10 studies involving 802 participants were included. Of these, 6 studies had a high risk of bias and the rest had an unclear risk of bias. Implant-supported prostheses were more cost-effective when compared to conventional dentures and fixed implant-supported prostheses. Overdentures supported by two implants and magnet attachment were reported as cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Implant-supported overdentures are a cost-effective treatment for edentulous patients. More clinical studies with appropriate scientific vigor are required to further assess the cost-effectiveness of implant-supported overdentures.

A cost analysis of a long-term prospective study of patients treated with immediately loaded implant-supported mandibular overdentures.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden for patients seeking treatment with implant-supported prostheses has not been given adequate attention. PURPOSE: To document long-term costs from a prospective trial on edentulous patients treated with mandibular implant-supported overdentures and 2 loading protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The direct clinical and time costs for 35 patients receiving an immediate-loading protocol (ILP) and 40 patients with a conventional-loading protocol, over 14 years of observation, were analyzed in 2016 Canadian dollars as a base year. Quality of life (QoL) for the ILP was measured using the OHIP-20 questionnaire. RESULTS: The ILP was associated with higher complication costs ($870.77 ± 692.24 vs $85.73 ± 133.14) with resultant higher maintenance costs ($1746.37 ± 892.68 vs $853.04 ± 276.21) (P < .05). OHIP results showed a sustained improvement in QoL through the first 5 year of follow-up. A worsening of QoL, specifically the functional-related OHIP scores, was noted at 14 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that the accrued maintenance costs for the ILP made the treatment less cost-effective over time. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term study confirmed that ILP is associated with higher maintenance costs and varying subjective QoL measurements. Clinical treatment protocols should be evaluated over a long period and address different perspectives.

Clinical Teaching of Prosthodontics in Undergraduate Courses in a German Dental School: Patients, Visits, Efforts, and Incentives.

It is unknown what disadvantages are faced by patients deciding for a prosthodontic treatment by inexperienced students. Commonly, the related extra effort and time are compensated by cost reduction of treatment fees. Thereby, the dental schools subsidize treatments to teach clinical prosthodontics. The aim of this study was to clarify the benefits to patients as well as the efforts of the dental school. Data collected from three courses in a dental school in Germany were patient gender, age, occupation, zip code, number of visits, scope of treatment including costs, financial discount, and remaining copayment. Travel costs were calculated based on zip code. Balance of travel costs and treatment discount was defined as financial benefit. The results showed that 185 patients (95 male) aged 32 to 82 years (median=58) were treated with fixed restorations (FR, n=110), telescopic dentures (TD, n=87), complete dentures (CD, n=17), or other (RD, n=3). The mean number of visits was 11 for FR, 12 for TD, and 9 for CD. Single distance to the clinic ranged from 0.6 to 65 miles (median=12). Total costs of prosthodontics were reduced by 19% on average. The mean financial benefit was 429 USD (median=298, min=-482, max=4025). The financial benefits were found to differ widely, including additional expenditures of patients. Participation, travel burden, and copayment did not depend on age, gender, or occupation. The financial benefit was relativized because students needed at least twice the sessions of a dentist. As a result, the financial efforts of dental schools are significant and compromise a cost-covering education.

Reimbursement systems influence prosthodontic treatment of adult patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of reimbursement system and organizational structure on oral rehabilitation of adult patients with tooth loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data were retrieved from the databases of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The data consisted of treatment records of patients aged 19 years and above claiming reimbursement for dental care from July 1, 2007 until June 30, 2009. Before July 1, 2008, a proportionately higher level of subsidy was available for dental care in patients 65 years and above, but thereafter the system was changed, so that the subsidy was the same, regardless of the patient's age. Prosthodontic treatment in patients 65 years and above was compared with that in younger patients before and after the change of the reimbursement system. Prosthodontic treatment carried out in the Public Dental Health Service and the private sector was also analyzed. RESULTS: Data were retrieved for 722,842 adult patients, covering a total of 1,339,915 reimbursed treatment items. After the change of the reimbursement system, there was a decrease in the proportion of items in patients 65 years and above in relation to those under 65. Overall, there was a minimal change in the proportion of treatment items provided by the private sector compared to the public sector following the change of the reimbursement system. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of service provider, private or public, financial incentive such as the reimbursement system may influence the provision of prosthodontic treatment, in terms of volume of treatment.

An economic evaluation of maxillary implant overdentures based on six vs. four implants.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to assess the value for money achieved by bar-retained implant overdentures based on six implants compared with four implants as treatment alternatives for the edentulous maxilla. METHODS: A Markov decision tree model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates for implant and denture failure as well as patient-centred health outcomes as available from recent literature. The decision scenario was modelled within a ten year time horizon and relied on cost reimbursement regulations of the German health care system. The cost-effectiveness threshold was identified above which the six-implant solution is preferable over the four-implant solution. Uncertainties regarding input parameters were incorporated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte-Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Within a base case scenario of average treatment complexity, the cost-effectiveness threshold was identified to be 17,564 € per year of denture satisfaction gained above of which the alternative with six implants is preferable over treatment including four implants. Sensitivity analysis yielded that, depending on the specification of model input parameters such as patients' denture satisfaction, the respective cost-effectiveness threshold varies substantially. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that bar-retained maxillary overdentures based on six implants provide better patient satisfaction than bar-retained overdentures based on four implants but are considerably more expensive. Final judgements about value for money require more comprehensive clinical evidence including patient-centred health outcomes.

Use of implant-supported prostheses in edentulous mandibles among prosthodontists in Sweden.

The aim of this study was to investigate the production of mandibular implant-supported fixed and removable prostheses among prosthodontic specialists in Sweden and to compare the results with findings in a similar study made in 2001 (17). Questionnaires regarding treatment with mandibular implant prostheses during 20011 were mailed to all specialists in prosthodontics in Sweden (n = 156, according to available data). Of the 156 questionnaires, 129 (83%) were returned and of those 114 were completed. The reported number of treatments with mandibular implant-supported prostheses varied much among the specialists. Fixed implant prostheses were more common than overdentures (means 11 and 3, median values 8 and 2, respectively). However, the range was large for both alternatives. Ten (9%) of the specialists reported no treatment with fixed implant prostheses while 29 (25%) had not made any implant overdenture during 2011. The most common anchorage system for overdentures in 2011 (as well as in 2001) was two un-splinted implants with ball attachments or Locator abutments. The most common reasons for choosing overdenture treatment instead of a fixed implant prosthesis in 2011 were the reduced cost and the patient's main wish to improve denture retention. A majority of the prosthodontists (58%) reported that patients with implant overdentures were as satisfied as those with fixed implant-supported prostheses, whereas 40% claimed they were less satisfied. Two respondents (2%) considered that overdenture patients were more satisfied than those with a fixed prosthesis. It can be concluded that the general attitude among Swedish prosthodontists towards implant overdentures has not changed much during the 10-year period between the present and the previous investigation.An overdenture is still a seldom-used option in implant treatment of patients with edentulous mandibles in Sweden. Instead, a fixed implant-supported prosthesis continues to be the preferred option,

Are people who still have their natural teeth willing to pay for mandibular two-implant overdentures?

AIM: Oral health in Canada and most developed and developing countries is funded by private payers, whose acceptance of treatment depends on their valuation of it. This study aims to determine how dentate individuals in Quebec, Canada, would value the benefits of mandibular two-implant overdentures based on their willingness to pay (WTP) for the treatment, either directly or with insurance/government coverage. METHODS: A total of 39 individuals (23-54 years) completed a Web-based WTP survey that consisted of three cost scenarios: (a) out-of-pocket payment; (b) private dental insurance coverage; and (c) public funding through additional taxes. Variations in WTP amounts were measured using regression models. RESULTS: Among respondents who were dentate or missing some teeth, average WTP out of pocket for implant overdentures was CAD$5419 for a 90% success rate. They were willing to pay an average CAD$169 as one-time payment for private dental insurance, with a one in five chance of becoming edentate. WTP amounts increased substantially with the probability of success of implant overdenture therapy. The results of regression analyses were consistent with theoretical predictions for education level and income (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study, within its limitations, suggest that dentate individuals would be willing to pay a significant amount to receive mandibular two-implant overdentures if and when they become edentate.

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.

[Cost-effectiveness when treating an edentulous mandible]. / Kosteneffectiviteit bij de behandeling van een edentate onderkaak.

When treating an edentulous patient with complaints of unsatisfactory retention of his complete mandibular denture, various treatment options are available: a new conventional denture, an implant-supported overdenture, and an implant-supported fixed partial denture. Important considerations during the decision-making process are patient satisfaction, cost of denture fabrication, and cost of maintenance. The outcome of the diagnostic procedure will have financial consequences. On that basis, a satisfactory treatment plan can be established and carried out. The need exists for a protocol which takes into account cost-effectiveness and is useful in selecting the appropriate treatment option, adjusted to individual requirements.

Tilted implants to support a maxillary removable dental prosthesis: a case report.

The placement of implants in a tilted position may provide a viable treatment modality, especially for patients with atrophic maxillae. The treatment steps and procedures for a maxillary implant-supported removable dental prosthesis, as well as a mandibular telescopic crown-retained removable dental prosthesis, are described. The concept of tilted implants via 3D planning and flapless surgery is presented. The final outcome facilitated improvement in the patient's satisfaction and comfort, as well as long-term stability of the implants and prosthesis. In addition, there was a reduction in cost by avoiding augmentation procedures.

Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHQOL) in patients treated with implant-supported overdentures and complete implant fixed prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a database of patients who had undergone implant treatment over a 6-year period, a study population of 62 patients was identified; every patient had at least four implants placed in one edentulous arch and was restored with either an overdenture or a fixed prosthesis. Patients were examined and a self-administered, structured multiple-response questionnaire, including the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 measurement tool and a patient satisfaction survey, was used to evaluate patient-centered treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Generally, patient satisfaction was very high in both the implant overdenture and fixed prosthesis groups, although the subjects in the overdenture group, who had mostly maxillary prostheses, reported significantly lower overall satisfaction and lower satisfaction with chewing capacity and esthetics. In just three categories--cost, satisfaction with treating doctor, and ability to perform oral hygiene measures--the fixed prosthesis group was less satisfied than the removable overdenture group, but the difference was not significant. Similarly, the overall OHQOL was high, although patients receiving a fixed prosthesis demonstrated significantly lower psychologic discomfort and psychological disability compared to the overdenture group. CONCLUSIONS: Among all patients who had similar numbers of implants placed, those who received an implant overdenture were less satisfied and had lower OHQOL than the patients who had a fixed prosthesis. Since patient and dentist preferences influenced the type of prosthesis provided, it is likely that subjective, patient-related factors are major determinants of satisfaction and treatment outcomes.

[Maintenance for implant-retained overdentures. An inventory of long-term costs]. / Nazorg aan overkappingsprothesen op implantaten. Een inventarisatie van de kosten op de lange termijn.

The maintenance costs for implant-retained overdentures are the subject of this study. A Pubmed Medline search was performed on the basis of the combination of the mesh terms 'maintenance', 'implant' and 'overdenture'. Eventually 85 publications were identified that met the initial selection criteria. For a subsequent selection, maintenance had to be the primary outcome measure, an observation period of 5 year or more was required and it had to be possible to capitalise the maintenance costs. Four articles remained as a result of this filtering procedure, 2 of which came from Dutch institutes. The findings were reasonably consistent. The structural costs for maintenance of implant-retained overdentures during the first 10 years was estimated at 1,400 Euro. It is expected that an overdenture on implants in the mandible will be replaced after a mean period of 12 years. For both outcome measures considerable individual variance applies.

A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants.

PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial tested hypotheses that there are no differences in patient satisfaction, component costs, or treatment and maintenance times when mandibular overdentures are retained by one or two implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects wearing conventional complete dentures were randomized to receive either one midline or two bilateral mandibular implants followed by a mandibular denture reline to incorporate implant retention. They indicated on a visual analog scale satisfaction with their dentures before implants and at 2 months and 1 year after implant retention. Satisfaction outcomes between the two groups were compared using the Wilcoxon/Mann-Whitney nonparametric rank test, while changes within each group were analyzed using signed-rank tests. Component costs and times for surgery, prosthodontic treatment, and maintenance were compared using nonparametric and t tests. RESULTS: Eighty-six subjects enrolled in this study and 85 completed the 1-year follow-up, at which median satisfaction was 93 (maximum 100) in the single-implant group and 94 in the two-implant group (P > .5). Within each group, median improvement in satisfaction was similarly dramatic (approximately 44) and significant (P < .001). Prosthodontic maintenance time was similar for both groups (P > .37), but the single-implant group had significantly lower component costs (P < .001) and lower times for surgery (P = .002), postsurgical denture maintenance (P = .021), and denture reline (P < .001). Five implants failed in four subjects, all in the two-implant group and all before denture reline. CONCLUSION: Lower component costs and treatment times, with comparable satisfaction and maintenance time over the first year, indicate that a mandibular overdenture retained by a single midline implant may be an alternative to the customary two-implant overdenture for maladaptive denture patients.