Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatments.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow, debridement combined with PerioChip, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.

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 an individually tailored oral health educational programme based on cognitive behavioural strategies in non-surgical periodontal treatment.

AIM: The aim of this cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), performed from a societal perspective, was to compare costs and consequences of an individually tailored oral health educational programme (ITOHEP) based on cognitive behavioural strategies integrated in non-surgical periodontal treatment compared with a standard treatment programme (ST). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized (n = 113), evaluator-blinded, controlled trial, with two different active treatments, was analysed with respect to their costs and consequences 12 months after non-surgical treatment. Costs referred to both treatment costs and costs contributed by the patient. Consequences (outcome) were expressed as the proportion of individuals classified as having reached the pre-set criteria for treatment success after non-surgical treatment ("successful-NSPT"). RESULTS: More individuals in the ITOHEP group reached the pre-set criteria for treatment success than individuals in the ST group did. The CEA revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness of SEK1724 [€191.09; SEK9.02 = €1 (January 2007)] per "successful-NSPT" case, of which treatment costs represented SEK1189 (€131.82), using the unit cost for a dental hygienist. CONCLUSION: The incremental costs per "successful-NSPT" case can be considered as low and strengthens the suggestion that an ITOHEP integrated into non-surgical periodontal treatment is preferable to a standardized education programme.

Income inequality and periodontal diseases in rich countries: an ecological cross-sectional study.

UNLABELLED: There are adverse effects of income inequality on morbidity and mortality. This relationship has not been adequately examined in relation to oral health. AIMS: To examine the relationship between income inequality and periodontal disease in rich countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 35-44 years in 17 rich countries with populations of more than 2 million. METHODS: National level data on periodontal disease, income inequality and absolute national income were collected from 17 rich countries with populations of more than 2m. Pearson and partial correlations were used to examine the relationship between income inequality and percentage of 35-44-year-old adults with periodontal pockets > or = 4 mm and > or = 6 mm deep, adjusting for absolute national income. RESULTS: Higher levels of income inequality were significantly associated with higher levels of periodontal disease, independently of absolute national income. Absolute income was not associated with levels of periodontal disease in these 17 rich countries. CONCLUSION: Income inequality appears to be an important contextual determinant of periodontal disease. The results emphasise the importance of relative income rather than absoluteincome in relation to periodontal disease in rich countries.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of periodontal disease control.

Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to evaluate alternative methods of periodontal disease control. The alternatives considered included non-surgical and surgical procedures as well as the use of antimicrobial agents. Data on costs were obtained from American Dental Association publications of average charges for periodontal services. The concept of quality-adjusted tooth-years (QATYs) was developed to provide an outcome measure which could be compared across treatments. The conclusions of this analysis are as follows: (1) Conservative non-surgical treatments for periodontal disease control not only have costs lower than surgical alternatives, as would be expected, but also maximize expected quality-adjusted tooth-years over a wide range of estimates; (2) antimicrobial therapy used as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment is likely to be both effective and cost-effective; and (3) quality of tooth-years is a critical consideration in the determination of outcome of periodontal treatment. For example, when tooth-years are not adjusted for quality, differences between treatments are diminished, and surgical treatment becomes as good as or better than more conservative treatments for some levels of disease severity.