EAO consensus conference: economic evaluation of implant‐supported prostheses. Issue 11 (15th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beikler, Thomas; Flemmig, Thomas F.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 26:Issue 11(2015)Supplement
• Page Start: 57
• Page End: 63
• Publication Date: 2015-06-15
• Subjects: cost‐benefit analysis -- cost‐effectiveness analysis -- cost‐utility analysis -- economic evaluation -- implant‐supported dental prosthesis; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12630
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: There are various alternatives for the management of oral conditions that may lead to or already have lead to partial or full edentulism. Economic evaluations measure the efficiency of alternative healthcare interventions and provide useful information for decision‐making and the allocation of scarce resources. Material and methods: The current English literature dealing with "cost‐effectiveness" of dental implant therapy versus different alternative treatment modalities, that is, complete and fixed partial dentures, root canal, and periodontal treatment, has been included in this narrative review. Due to the high heterogeneity within the literature, a meta‐analysis could not be conducted. Results: The available evidence from economic evaluations indicated that for the treatment of central incisors with irreversible pulpitis and coronal lesions, root canal treatments were most cost‐effective initial treatment options. When initial root canal treatments failed, orthograde retreatments were most cost‐effective. When root canal retreatments failed, extractions and replacement with single implant‐supported crowns were more cost‐effective compared to fixed or removable partial dentures. In the treatment of periodontitis in molars with Class I furcation invasion, non‐surgical periodontal therapy was more effective and costed less than implant‐supported single crowns. For the replacement of single missing teeth, two evaluations indicated that implant‐supported single crowns provided better outcomes in terms of greater quality‐adjusted tooth years or survival rates at lower costs compared to fixed partial prostheses. Another economic evaluation found that implant‐supported crowns costed more, but provided greater survival rates compared to fixed partial dentures. For the restoration of edentulous mandibles, two evaluations indicated that overdentures retained by two or four implants improved oral health‐related quality of life outcomes, but costed more than complete dentures. Conclusions: To better assess the efficiency of implant‐supported prostheses in various clinical conditions, more economic evaluations are needed that follow well‐established methodologies in health economics.