Cost‐effectiveness of implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures

Abstract

It is concluded that depending on the choice of outcome measure and monetary threshold, supporting an RPD with implants is cost-effective when payers are willing to pay more than €80 per OHIP point gained. Per MAI point gained, an additional €786 has to be invested.

The cost‐effectiveness of oral health interventions: A systematic review of cost‐utility analyses

“…The EuroQol‐EQ‐5D‐3L questionnaire was used by four studies, and one study used the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU‐9D) questionnaire with utility values based on proxy population weights. One study converted patients' SF‐36 scores to QALYs using the SF‐6D excel scoring programme (Table ). The two studies which used DALY incorporated disability weights from the literature to calculate DALYs.…”

“…Of the 23 studies, 21 were able to identify the most cost‐effective procedure among the different options compared (Table ). However, in six studies, the authors reported uncertainties of their conclusion depending on the factors included in the analysis. Studies that assessed the cost‐effectiveness of predental antibiotic prophylaxis showed findings more compatible with the latest guidelines and recommendations in this area.…”

“…Most of the studies (n = 7; 30%) were conducted in the USA, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] followed (n = 4; 17%) by the UK. 15,[28][29][30] Three studies (13%) from each were conducted in Australia [31][32][33] and The Netherlands [34][35][36] whereas only 2 studies (9%) were reported from the Asian region 37,38 (Table 1). Among the selected articles, the most frequent were on oral cancer (n = 6; 26%), 23,24,27,29,34,36 prosthetic management (n = 6; 26%) 28,35,[38][39][40][41] and prevention of dental caries (n = 4; 17%).…”

“…The Euro-Qol-EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used by four studies, 28,30,36,37 and one study 33 used the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) questionnaire with utility values based on proxy population weights. One study 35 converted patients' SF-36 scores to QALYs using the SF-6D excel scoring programme (Table S2). The two studies 31,32 Of the 23 studies, perspectives included societal measures, [21][22][23][24]33,35,37 the healthcare systems, [28][29][30]32,36,41 and patient or thirdparty payer, [25][26][27]30,35,40 whereas 6 studies did not explicitly state the perspective used in their analysis 15,31,34,38,39,42 (Table 1).…”

“…The most frequent currency presented was US Dollars (n = 9; 39%). Seven studies 15,24,25,30,34,35,39 did not report the base year and/or conversion of the currencies used (Table S3). Most of the studies (n = 12) used 3% to discount both costs and benefits.…”