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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implant-Supported Single Crown and Tooth-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in Türkiye

OBJECTIVES

The most cost-effective option for replacing lost teeth is not evident because there is a dearth of evidence-based information on implant-supported single crowns versus tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses. This study conducted the analysis of cost-effectiveness of implant-supported single crown and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses from a social perspective in Türkiye.

METHODS

Costs were calculated in the analysis from a social perspective for 2021. Costs and quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) values were computed over a 20-year period in the study using the Markov model. The computed values were discounted by 5%. The results are presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. To assess the impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness analyses, a tornado diagram and Monte Carlo simulations were created.

RESULTS

Throughout the 20-year time horizon, tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses cost $985.58 cumulatively, whereas implant-supported single crown cost $2161.64 (US $1 = 9.22 ₺ as of 15 October 2021). The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 1.333 per QAPY. Compared with the implant-supported single crown tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses, it offers a QAPY of 0.882 over a 20-year period, while costing an additional $1176.06.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the implant-supported single crown provided higher QAPY value but was costlier. When the research's findings are compared with the literature, it becomes clear that Türkiye has lower dental care expenses than most other nations.

Treatment effect of implant-supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for prospective clinical studies on completely edentulous patients treated with IFCDs and/or IODs, reporting pre-treatment and follow-up dPROs. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Afterward, meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models.

RESULTS

A total number of 1608 records was initially identified. Of those, 28 studies reporting dPROs from 1457 patients were finally included. The applied dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) included several versions of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) or specific items assessing satisfaction with Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). The overall ES was large for rehabilitation with IFCDs (1.68 [CI: 1.15, 2.20]) and IODs (1.26 [CI: 0.99, 1.52]) with no significant difference (p = .165) between the two. Denture stability was the only factor rated significantly higher for IFCDs (ES difference: 2.37 [CI: 0.21, 4.54]; p = .032). Subgroup analyses revealed moderately higher ES for IODs on two implants relative to one implant (ES difference: 0.73 [CI: 0.34, 1.12]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong positive effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients, independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation. In patients seeking high stability, IFCDs may be preferable. In mandibular IODs on a single implant, there was a significantly positive effect of an additional implant on dPROs.

Maxillary overdenture on three implants retained by low-profile stud attachments - A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Clinical data are needed on long-term outcomes of removable implant-supported prostheses in the fully edentulous maxilla as a function of the number of implants, effects of the attachment system and other clinical variables.

OBJECTIVE

To restore individuals with an edentate maxilla with a metal-reinforced removable prosthesis without palatal coverage retained by low-profile stud attachments on three implants.

METHODS

The regional ethics committee approved a prospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients treated in a private speciality clinic. Primary outcomes were patients reported, that is denture satisfaction scale and oral health-related quality of life - OHIP-20. Secondary outcomes were implant- (bone loss, implant complications and peri-implant conditions) and prosthesis-related (prosthesis complications, maintenance needs and mucosa condition).

RESULTS

Thirty-two study participants were recruited between March 2007 and October 2016 and followed for a minimum of five years. According to Kruskal-Wallis tests, the OHIP-20 and Denture Satisfaction Scale questionnaire pre-treatment scores differed significantly. After an average of 6.7 years, peri-implant bone loss of more than 2 mm was observed on 17% of all implants, while no or minor bone loss was seen on 38%. The estimated success of implants was 0.95 at 168 months. The estimated success of the prosthesis, that is no adverse events or need for any repairs, was 0.55 at 156 months.

CONCLUSION

The positive findings in the current clinical study strengthen the notion that for many individuals with an edentulous maxilla, a removable prosthesis retained by three implants fitted with low-profile stud-attachment is a reliable technical solution.

Peri-implant stress distribution assessment of various attachment systems for implant supported overdenture prosthesis by finite element analysis - A systematic review

Background

Various attachments like ball, bar-clip, magnetic attachments are used in implant supported overdentures. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) a newly innovated technology has been used in dental implantology to evaluate stress distribution patterns. There is little evidence available regarding the stress distribution in peri-implant region for implant supported overdentures. The purpose of the review was to generate scientific evidence on peri-implant stress distribution in FEA model with different types of attachments employed in implant supported overdentures.

Materials and methods

Systematic review was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Guidelines and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). A comprehensive search was undertaken by two reviewers from January 2020 to June 2020 with no year limits to published articles. Only in-vitro FEA studies were included. Following electronic databases were searched for published studies- PubMed, Web of Science. Characteristics of the studies tabulated and analysis of articles was done to compare different attachment systems.

Results

Locator attachments showed better stress distribution than ball attachment system in all the studies but one. Two studies showed results in favour of ball attachment compared to bar-clip attachment system when stress was evaluated distal to the implants. No significant difference in terms of stress concentration could be generated between ball versus magnetic/equator versus locator attachment system due to less number of studies and conflicting results.

Conclusion

Various studies showed different results due to heterogenicity in selected attachment systems and study designs. Locator attachments showed favourable stress distribution around peri-implant bone than other attachments.

Immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdentures compared to conventional complete dentures: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) has been proposed as an alternative to more complex overdenture designs as a simplified implant intervention for edentulous patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to run a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing the SIMO and the conventional complete denture (CCD) treatment. Imediately loaded external hexagon implant and ball attachment were used for the overdenture goup. Direct costs related to therapies were identified and valuated throughout a 1-year period after delivery, in Brazilian currency (R$) and converted into international dollars (I$) using purchase power parity exchange rates. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the OHIP-Edent and satisfaction scores for calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

Outcomes were assessed at the 1-year follow-up for 65 patients (CCD=34; SIMO=31). Overall OHIP-Edent and satisfaction scores improved significantly in the SIMO group, while remained unchanged in the CCD group. The mean overall costs were R$1,179.04 (I$590.99) for the CCD group and R$2,127.91 (I$1,068.20) for the SIMO group - 80.7% incremental cost for SIMO. The ICER calculation for SIMO treatment showed a mean cost of I$48.20 for 1-point reduction in OHIP-Edent scores, and I$12.56 for 1-point increase in satisfaction score.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the effectiveness of this simplified and low-cost implant intervention for edentulous patients. SIMO also seems a cost-effective alternative to the CCD and the relatively low incremental cost may potentially increase the utilization of dental implants among older subjects, especially those with limited financial resources.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdenture was superior to the conventional complete denture in terms of patient-reported outcome measures at a low incremental cost.

Personality Traits and Annual Income Determine the Willingness to Pay for a Single Tooth Implant

The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors influencing the willingness to pay for a single tooth implant in Malaysia and to assess if an additional evidence-based patient education video increases the willingness to pay. A total of 100 subjects seeking single tooth replacement at the Oral Health Centre, International Medical University (IMU), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, were asked to complete questionnaires about personal demographics and personality traits. Subsequently, they were randomly allocated into two groups. Group C received a conventional patient-dentist interaction on treatment options for missing teeth, while Group EV received the same content with an additional evidence-based video on the survival rate and complications for each option from recent meta-analyses. Willingness to pay the median price and the highest price that the subjects were willing to pay were assessed by a structured bidding process. A higher annual income was significantly associated with willingness to pay the median price for a single tooth implant (χ² = 6.91, p = 0.03). Dominant personality traits of openness (r = -0.25), conscientiousness (r = -0.30) and agreeableness (r = -0.20) were negatively correlated with the highest price that the patients were willing to pay for a single tooth implant (Pearson's correlation test, p < 0.05). No significant difference in willingness to pay was found between Group C and Group EV (χ² = 0.05, p > 0.05). In conclusion, patient education strategies for single tooth replacements with dental implants should be customized based on a patient's personality and income to maximize effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prosthetic treatment with thermoplastic resin removable partial dentures

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of thermoplastic resin removable partial dentures (TR-RPDs) with metal clasp-retained removable partial dentures (MC-RPDs), from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

Patient-reported outcome measures (Oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL], patient satisfaction, oral appearance) were assessed among 24 partially dentate subjects who completed a randomized crossover trial comparing TR-RPDs and MC-RPDs. The prosthetic treatment fee for patients was used as the direct cost. The cost of achieving a clinically minimum important difference (MID) in Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) summary score, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICE R) for each outcome measure were determined.

RESULTS

OHRQoL, patient satisfaction, and oral appearance was rated higher with TR-RPDs compared to MC-RPDs. The median cost of achieving a MID in OHRQoL with TR-RPDs ($698) was 6.5 times higher than that with MC-RPDs ($107). The ICER was $67 for the OHIP summary score, $195 for the satisfaction score, and $1,169 for the oral appearance rating.

CONCLUSIONS

Although TR-RPDs provide better OHRQoL, patient satisfaction, and oral appearance than MC-RPDs, the cost-effectiveness of TR-RPDs was inferior to MC-RPDs from the patients' perspective.

Long term survival of mature autotransplanted teeth: A retrospective single center analysis

OBJECTIVE

The replacement of an irremediably compromised tooth requires an implant rehabilitation or a traditional fixed partial denture. In well-selected cases, a further therapeutic possibility is represented by tooth autotransplantation. Although dental transplants are poorly understood and practiced, the international literature agrees that it is considered the first choice when applicable. The advantages of this technique are numerous: use of an autologous element, maintenance of tissue trophism, aesthetic and functional restoration, costs reduction. Although autotransplantation is often performed with immature teeth, even mature teeth with fully formed apex can be used as donors. The aim of the present work was to analyze consecutive cases of completely formed donor teeth autotransplantations performed from 2005 to 2011 in 21 patients for evaluating the survival and success rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent transplantation in a specialized center in Rimini (Italy) from 2005 to 2011 were checked. Only transplants of mature donor molars were considered. Patients were called up to evaluate the survival rate and success rate.

RESULTS

The mean age at the time of the surgery was 33,6 ± 7,4; mean follow up was 11,9 years ±1,9. Success rate at the time of latest recall visit was 80 % and survival 95 % of the analyzed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The survival and success rate are in complete agreement with the most recent literature and confirm that the technique of autotransplantation is reliable when indications and protocols are rigidly followed, also using mature teeth as donors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two attachment systems for mandibular overdenture

Objectives

This study analysed the cost‐effectiveness of two different attachments for the 2‐implant overdenture (2IOD) in edentulous mandibles.

Materials and methods

When considering alternative treatments, cost‐effectiveness analysis is an important factor for stakeholders (patient, clinician, social security, insurance company, etc.). A general practice population (n = 116) was treated between 2003 and 2013 with a mandibular 2IOD with 2 different ball/stud attachment systems, one spherical (Group D) and one cylindrical (Group L). Patient well‐being was assessed with OHIP‐14‐Total (OHIP‐14‐T), at intake and annually up to 5 years, to calculate the health effect. Initial and maintenance costs of both treatments were inventoried. The cost‐effectiveness was compared. Annual discount rates of 4% and 1.5% were applied to future costs and health outcomes, following Dutch guidelines. Prices were adjusted to the year 2003. To offset the uncertainty in relevant input parameters, a sensitivity analysis was performed using bootstrap analysis. Significance was set at p < .05.

Results

The health effect was 6.36 (SD 5.32) for Group D and 8.54 (SD 5.63) for Group L. The sum of the discounted costs up to 5 years was EUR 4,210.98 (SD 634.75) for the D and EUR 3,840.62 (SD 302.63) for the Group L (p = .005). The bootstrapping reports that L abutment clearly dominates the D abutment in terms of cost‐effectiveness.

Conclusions

The 2IOD on the L abutment is dominant compared to the 2IOD on D abutment, in a 5‐year perspective.

A comparison of cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of two- implant-retained overdentures versus other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible: A systematic review

Aim:

The aim of this study was to examine systematically the data published on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mandibular two-implant-retained overdentures compared to other removable prosthodontic treatment options for edentulous mandible.

Settings and Design:

It is a systematic review which analyses the available data from the prospective and retrospective studies and randomized clinical trials to find out costs and cost effectiveness of different removable treatment modalities for completely edentulous mandible. The study protocol was decided according to PRISMA guidelines.

Materials and Methods:

The search was limited to English literature only and included an electronic search through PubMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and complemented by hand-searching. All clinical trials published up to August 2019 were included (without any starting limit). Two independent investigators extracted the data and assessed the studies.

Statistical Analysis Used:

No meta-analysis was conducted because of the high heterogeneity of data.

Results:

Out of the initial 509 records, only nine studies were included. The risks of bias of individual studies were assessed. Six studies presented data on cost and cost analysis only. The rest three articles provided data on cost-effectiveness. The overall costs of implant overdentures were higher than the conventional complete dentures. However, implant overdentures were more cost-effective when compared to conventional complete dentures. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than two-implant overdentures. Overdentures supported by two or four mini-implants were also reported as more cost-effective than conventional two-implant-supported overdentures.

Conclusions:

Two-implant-retained overdentures are more expensive but cost-effective than the conventional complete dentures. Two- or four-mini-implant-retained overdentures are less expensive than two-implant-retained overdentures, but there is a lack of long-term data on aftercare cost and survival rate of mini-implants. Single-implant overdentures are also less expensive than the two-implant-retained overdentures. The differences of the aftercare costs of different attachment systems for implant overdentures were not significant. There is a need of further studies on comparative cost-effectiveness of different types of implant overdentures.

Measuring the Monetary Value of Dental Implants for Denture Retention: A Willingness to Pay Approach

Purpose:

Two interforaminal dental implants in is a common treatment option for denture retention in edentulous patients. Economic methods to assess the patient’s quality of life include the willingness to pay (WTP) for implant treatment and willingness to accept (WTA) to forgo implant treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the monetary value of implant retained complete dentures using WTP and WTA.

Methods:

We included a convenience sample of 16 patients from a previously published cohort study on the survival of immediately loaded implants in edentulous patients to assess WTP and WTA for this treatment option.

Results:

The average maximum WTP for implant treatment was 4606 (95% CI: 2991-6222) Swiss Francs. Out of the 16 patients, only 5 were willing to trade their implants for money, with a mean WTA of CHF 33'500 (range: 3000-100'000).All patients would agree to undergo the implant surgery procedure again.

Conclusion:

The results of the present study show that most patients are not willing to trade the increase in quality of life after implant surgery against money, suggesting that WTA exceeds by large WTP for the same health condition.