Prosthetic restoration in the single‐tooth gap: patient preferences and analysis of the WTP index. Issue 11 (10th September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Augusti, Davide; Augusti, Gabriele; Re, Dino
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 25:Issue 11(2014:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1257
• Page End: 1264
• Publication Date: 2013-09-10
• Subjects: implant -- patient preference -- single‐tooth gap -- treatment plan -- willingness to pay; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12264
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the preference of a patients' population, according to the index of willingness to pay (WTP), against two treatments to restore a single‐tooth gap: the implant‐supported crown (ISC) and the 3‐unit fixed partial denture prosthesis (FPDP) on natural teeth. Materials and methods: Willingness to pay values were recorded on 107 subjects by asking the WTP from a starting bid of €2000 modifiable through monetary increases or decreases (€100). Data were collected through an individually delivered questionnaire. The characteristics of the population and choices made, the median values and WTP associations with socio‐demographic parameters (Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests), correlations between variables (chi‐square test in contingency tables) and significant parameters for predicting WTP values obtained in a multiple linear regression model were revealed. Results: The 64% of patients expressed a preference for ISC, while the remaining 36% of the population chose the FPDP. The current therapeutic choice and those carried out in the past were generally in agreement (>70% of cases, P = 0.0001); a relationship was discovered between the anterior and posterior area to the same method of rehabilitation (101 of 107 cases, 94.4%). The WTP median values for ISC were of €3000 and of €2500 in the anterior and posterior areas, respectively. The smallest amount of money has been allocated for FPDP in posterior region (median of €1500). The "importance of oral care" for the patient was a significant predictor, in the regression model analysis, for the estimation of both anterior ( P = 0.0003) and posterior ( P < 0.0001) WTP values. The "previous therapy" variable reached and was just close to significance in anterior ( P = 0.0367) and posterior ( P = 0.0511) analyses, respectively. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, most of the population (64%) surveyed indicated the ISC as a therapeutic solution for the replacement of a single missing tooth, showing a higher WTP index in the anterior area. Among investigated socio‐demographic variables, the importance assigned by the patient to oral care appeared to influence WTP values of the rehabilitation, regardless the location of the single gap in the mouth.