The analysis of cost-effectiveness of implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis.
- Author:
June Sang CHUN
1
;
Alix HAR
;
Hyun Pil LIM
;
Hoi Jeong LIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis ; Original Article
- Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Implant; CFDP; QAPY; Markov model; Monte-Carlo simulation; Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve
- MeSH: Dental Prosthesis*; Korea; Patient Satisfaction; Prostheses and Implants; Prosthodontics; Survival Rate
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2016;8(1):53-61
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: This study conducted an analysis of cost-effectiveness of the implant and conventional fixed dental prosthesis (CFDP) from a single treatment perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Markov model for cost-effectiveness analysis of the implant and CFDP was carried out over maximum 50 years. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by the 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were also presented. The results from meta-analysis studies were used to determine the survival rates and complication rates of the implant and CFDP. Data regarding the cost of each treatment method were collected from University Dental Hospital and Statistics Korea for 2013. Using the results of the patient satisfaction survey study, quality-adjusted prosthesis year (QAPY) of the implant and CFDP strategy was evaluated with annual discount rate. RESULTS: When only the direct cost was considered, implants were more cost-effective when the willingness to pay (WTP) was more than 10,000 won at 10th year after the treatment, and more cost-effective regardless of the WTP from 20th year after the prosthodontic treatment. When the indirect cost was added to the direct cost, implants were more cost-effective only when the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after the prosthodontic treatment, more than 35,000 won at the 20th year after prosthodontic treatment. CONCLUSION: The CFDP was more cost-effective unless the WTP was more than 75,000 won at the 10th year after prosthodontic treatment. But the cost-effectivenss tendency changed from CFDP to implant as time passed.
