The analysis of cost-effectiveness of implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. This study conducted an analysis of cost-effectiveness of the implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis (CFDP) from a single treatment perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Markov model for costeffectiveness analysis of the implant and CFDP was carried out over maximum 50 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by the 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were also presented. The results from meta-analysis studies were used to determine the survival rates and complication rates of the implant and CFDP. Data regarding the cost of each treatment method were collected from University Dental Hospital and Statistics Korea for 2013. Using the results of the patient satisfaction survey study, quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) of the implant and CFDP strategy was evaluated with annual discount rate. RESULTS. When only the direct cost was considered, implants were more cost-effective when the willingness to pay (WTP) was more than 10,000 won at 10th year after the treatment, and more cost-effective regardless of the WTP from 20th year after the prosthodontic treatment. When the indirect cost was added to the direct cost, implants were more cost-effective only when the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after the prosthodontic treatment, more than 35,000 won at the 20th year after prosthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION. The CFDP was more cost-effective unless the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after prosthodontic treatment. But the cost-effectivenss tendency changed from CFDP to implant as time passed.
Abstract
PURPOSE. This study conducted an analysis of cost-effectiveness of the implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis (CFDP) from a single treatment perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Markov model for costeffectiveness analysis of the implant and CFDP was carried out over maximum 50 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by the 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were also presented. The results from meta-analysis studies were used to determine the survival rates and complication rates of the implant and CFDP. Data regarding the cost of each treatment method were collected from University Dental Hospital and Statistics Korea for 2013. Using the results of the patient satisfaction survey study, quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) of the implant and CFDP strategy was evaluated with annual discount rate. RESULTS. When only the direct cost was considered, implants were more cost-effective when the willingness to pay (WTP) was more than 10,000 won at 10th year after the treatment, and more cost-effective regardless of the WTP from 20th year after the prosthodontic treatment. When the indirect cost was added to the direct cost, implants were more cost-effective only when the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after the prosthodontic treatment, more than 35,000 won at the 20th year after prosthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION. The CFDP was more cost-effective unless the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after prosthodontic treatment. But the cost-effectivenss tendency changed from CFDP to implant as time passed.
참고문헌 (16)
- Hebel K, "Single-tooth replacement:bridge vs. implant-supported restoration", J Can Dent Assoc, 66, pp.435~438 (2000)
- Garcia LT, "The partially edentulous patient:fixed prosthodontics or implant treatment options", Tex Dent J, 120, pp.1148~1156 (2003)
- Pennington MW, "Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of root canal treatment using conventional approaches versus replacement with an implant", Int Endod J, 42, pp.874~883 (2009)
- Kim SG, "Cost-effectiveness of endodontic molar retreatment compared with fixed partial dentures and single-tooth implant alternatives", J Endod, 37, pp.321~325 (2011)
- Bouchard P, "Cost-effectiveness modeling of dental implant vs. bridge", Clin Oral Implants Res, 20, pp.583~587 (2009)
- Cicciù M, "Cementedretained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants", Minerva Stomatol, 57, pp.167~179 (2008)
- Cicciù M, "FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis", Int J Clin Exp Med, 7, pp.817~825 (2014)
- Jacobson JJ, "A utility analysis of dental implants", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 7, pp.381~388 (1992)
- Sonnenberg FA, "Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide", Med Decis Making, 13, pp.322~338 (1993)
- Jung RE, "Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years", Clin Oral Implants Res, 23, pp.2~21 (2012)
- Pjetursson BE, "A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years", Clin Oral Implants Res, 15, pp.667~676 (2004)
- Peter M, "A Practical Approach" (2008), John Wiley & Sons
- Al-Quran FA, "Single-tooth replacement:factors affecting different prosthetic treatment modalities", BMC Oral Health, 11, pp.34~ (2011)
- Meyenberg KH, "The aesthetic challenges of single tooth replacement: a comparison of treatment alternatives", Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent, 9, pp.727~735 (1997)
- Gold MR, "Costeffectiveness in health and medicine", pp.91~92 (1996), Oxford University Press
- Andrea S, "Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models" (2004), John Wiley & Sons