Health State Utilities in Edentulous Patients: A Time Trade-off Approach

Prevalence of Missing Values and Protest Zeros in Contingent Valuation in Dental Medicine

Background: The number of contingent valuation (CV) studies in dental medicine using willingness-to-pay (WTP) methodology has substantially increased in recent years. Missing values due to absent information (i.e., missingness) or false information (i.e., protest zeros) are a common problem in WTP studies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of missing values in CV studies in dental medicine, to assess how these have been dealt with, and to suggest recommendations for future research. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO) on 8 June 2021, and hand-searched references of selected reviews. CV studies in clinical dentistry using WTP for valuing a good or service were included. Results: We included 49 WTP studies in our review. Out of these, 19 (38.8%) reported missing values due to absent information, and 28 (57.1%) reported zero values (i.e., WTP valued at zero). Zero values were further classified into true zeros (i.e., representing the underlying preference of the respondent) or protest zeros (i.e., false information as a protest behavior) in only 9 studies. Most studies used a complete case analysis to address missingness while only one study used multiple imputation. Conclusions: There is uncertainty in the dental literature on how to address missing values and zero values in CV studies. Zero values need to be classified as true zeros versus protest zeros with follow-up questions after the WTP elicitation procedure, and then need to be handled differently. Advanced statistical methods are available to address both missing values due to missingness and due to protest zeros but these are currently underused in dental medicine. Failing to appropriately address missing values in CV studies may lead to biased WTP estimates of dental interventions.

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.