Cost-utility analysis of an implant treatment in dentistry

被引:4
|
作者
Losenicka, Johana [1 ]
Gajdos, Ondrej [1 ]
Kamensky, Vojtech [1 ]
机构
[1] Czech Tech Univ, Fac Biomed Engn, Dept Biomed Technol, Nam Sitna 3105, Kladno 27201, Czech Republic
关键词
Implant treatment; Implant; Fixed dental prosthesis; Cost-utility analysis; Markov models; FIXED PARTIAL DENTURES; DENTAL IMPLANTS; HEALTH; REPLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1186/s12903-021-01790-y
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area. Methods Cost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon. Results Based on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD - 1434. Conclusion The results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis
    Leonart, Leticia P.
    Riveros, Bruno S.
    Krahn, Murray D.
    Pontarolo, Roberto
    NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY, 2021, 111 (04) : 388 - 401
  • [42] Treatment of primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH): A cost-utility analysis
    Tano, BD
    Sood, N
    Hoffmann, S
    Pathak, DS
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2003, 6 (03) : 308 - 308
  • [43] INCREMENTAL COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF DEXAMETHASONE INTRAVITREAL IMPLANT FOR THE TREATMENT OF MACULAR EDEMA FOLLOWING RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION
    Kowalski, J.
    Yeh, W. S.
    O'Leary, B.
    Ackerman, S.
    Sharma, S.
    Adena, M.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (03) : A55 - A55
  • [44] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF CANCER CARE
    OESER, H
    KOEPPE, P
    MUNCHENER MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1984, 126 (09): : A38 - &
  • [45] An instrumentalist critique of ''cost-utility analysis''
    Hildred, W
    Beauvais, F
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ISSUES, 1995, 29 (04) : 1083 - 1096
  • [46] Decision Modeling for Cost-Utility Analysis
    Kuntz, Karen M.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (06) : 700 - 701
  • [47] Cost-utility analysis for statins in Mexico
    Quevedo, MJF
    Contreras, I
    Nevarez, A
    García-Contreras, F
    Constantino-Casas, P
    Garduño, J
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2005, 8 (03) : 269 - 269
  • [48] A cost-utility analysis of therapy for amblyopia
    Membreno, JH
    Brown, MM
    Brown, GC
    Sharma, S
    Beauchamp, GR
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2002, 109 (12) : 2265 - 2271
  • [49] Cost-utility analysis, the pearl in the crown
    Brown, Melissa M.
    Brown, Gary C.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2010, 45 (03): : 211 - 212
  • [50] COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS AND PHYSICAL THERAPY
    KARHAUSEN, R
    WEBERFALKENSAMMER, H
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE, 1982, 41 (04): : 183 - 183