Cargando…

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 Ma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Korenori, Arai, Koji, Kawakami, Yuki, Teranishi, Murata, Tatsunori, Sachiko, Tanaka-Mizuno, Shunsuke, Baba
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30126400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0604-5
_version_ 1783349269188575232
author Korenori, Arai
Koji, Kawakami
Yuki, Teranishi
Murata, Tatsunori
Sachiko, Tanaka-Mizuno
Shunsuke, Baba
author_facet Korenori, Arai
Koji, Kawakami
Yuki, Teranishi
Murata, Tatsunori
Sachiko, Tanaka-Mizuno
Shunsuke, Baba
author_sort Korenori, Arai
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6102921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61029212018-08-30 Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis Korenori, Arai Koji, Kawakami Yuki, Teranishi Murata, Tatsunori Sachiko, Tanaka-Mizuno Shunsuke, Baba BMC Oral Health Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2018-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6102921/ /pubmed/30126400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0604-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Korenori, Arai
Koji, Kawakami
Yuki, Teranishi
Murata, Tatsunori
Sachiko, Tanaka-Mizuno
Shunsuke, Baba
Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title_full Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title_short Cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
title_sort cost-effectiveness of molar single-implant versus fixed dental prosthesis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30126400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0604-5
work_keys_str_mv AT korenoriarai costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis
AT kojikawakami costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis
AT yukiteranishi costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis
AT muratatatsunori costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis
AT sachikotanakamizuno costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis
AT shunsukebaba costeffectivenessofmolarsingleimplantversusfixeddentalprosthesis