An Up-to-15-Year Comparison of the Survival and Complication Burden of Three-Unit Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses and Implant-Supported Single Crowns.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the outcomes and economic complication burden of three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (TFDPs) and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs) provided to a sequential cohort in a specialist prosthodontic practice over a 15-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sequential patients requiring replacement of a single missing tooth between 1996 and 2010 with a metal-ceramic three-unit TFDP (n = 145 patients, n = 174 prostheses) or ISC (n = 174 patients, n = 220 prostheses) were included. Prostheses subjectively judged at insertion to have an unfavorable 10-year prognosis (17 TFDPs, 0 ISCs) were removed from statistical analyses. The estimated cumulative survival (ECS) was calculated with the life table actuarial method and standard errors calculated with the Greenwood formula. Differences in outcomes between all prostheses and those replacing only anterior or only posterior teeth were assessed with the log rank test. Complication incidence, severity, and economic burden, measured in time/cost accounting units (TAUs), were tallied and compared descriptively. RESULTS: The 15-year ECS did not differ for 112 TFDPs (92.75% ± 3.28%) and 81 ISCs (95.95% ± 2.92%) replacing posterior teeth. However, the 15-year ECS was significantly greater for 139 ISCs (93.33% ± 6.44%) than for 45 TFDPs (82.82% ± 6.50%) replacing anterior teeth. The economic burden of nonterminal complications for both prostheses was low (mean = 0.3 and 0.2 TAUs per prosthesis for TFDPs and ISCs, respectively). This equated to 3 TAUs/100 years in clinical service and 4 TAUs/100 years in clinical service for the TFDPs and ISCs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The survival of three-unit TFDPs and ISCs over 15 years was not statistically different when replacing posterior teeth, but ISCs survived significantly better when replacing anterior teeth. The complication rates of the TFDPs and ISCs were similar, but the economic burden for the TFDPs was greater.

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.

Preventing and Treating Peri-Implantitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large number of treatments for peri-implantitis are available, but their cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of preventing and treating peri-implantitis. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed that followed each implant over 20 years. Supportive implant therapy (SIT) for managing peri-implant mucositis and preventing development of peri-implantitis was either provided or not. Risk of peri-implantitis was assumed to be affected by SIT and the patient's risk profile. If peri-implantitis occurred, 11 treatment strategies (non-surgical or surgical debridement alone or combined with adjunct therapies) were compared. Treatments and risk profiles determined disease progression. Modeling was performed based on systematically collected data. Primary outcomes were costs and proportion of lost implants, as assessed via Monte Carlo microsimulations. RESULTS: Not providing SIT and performing only non-surgical debridement was both least costly and least effective. The next best (more costly and effective) option was to provide SIT and perform surgical debridement (additional 0.89 euros per 1% fewer implants lost). The most effective option included bone grafts, membranes, and laser treatment (56 euros per 1%). For patients at high risk, the cost-effectiveness of SIT increased, whereas in low-risk groups, a cost-optimized strategy was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinical decision-making will be guided mainly by clinical condition, cost-effectiveness analyses might add another perspective. Based on these findings, an unambiguous comparative effectiveness ranking was not established. However, cost-effectiveness was predominantly determined by provision of SIT and initial treatment costs. Transferability of these findings to other healthcare systems needs further confirmation.

A comparison of teeth and implants during maintenance therapy in terms of the number of disease-free years and costs -- an in vivo internal control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost minimization and cost effectiveness involved in maintaining teeth and implants for patients treated for periodontal disease. MATERIALS & METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out encompassing all patients who had initial periodontal treatment followed by implant placement and maintenance therapy in a specialist practice in Norway. The neighbouring tooth and the contra-lateral tooth were used as controls. The number of disease-free years and the extra cost over and above maintenance treatment for both teeth and implants were recorded. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 43 patients with an average age of 67.4 years. The patients had 847 teeth at the initial examination and received 119 implants. Two implants were removed 13 and 22 years after insertion. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 53.5% at the patient level and 31.1% at the implant level. The prevalence of periodontitis was 53.4% at the patient level and 7.6% at the tooth level. The mean number of disease-free years was: implants: 8.66; neighbouring tooth: 9.08; contra-lateral teeth: 9.93. These mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. The extra cost of maintaining the implants was about five times higher for implants than for teeth. CONCLUSION: The number of disease-free years was the same for neighbouring teeth, contra-lateral teeth and implants. However, due to the high prevalence of peri-implantitis, the cost of maintaining implants was much higher than the cost of maintaining teeth.