Journal of clinical periodontology · 2015
Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatments.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Listl Stefan, Frühauf Nadine, Dannewitz Bettina, Weis Christiane, Tu Yu-Kang, Chang Huei-Ju, Faggion Clovis M
Аннотация
AIM: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation.
RESULTS: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow, debridement combined with PerioChip, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation.
RESULTS: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow, debridement combined with PerioChip, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineCombined Modality TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDental PolishingFinancing, PersonalHealth Care CostsHumansLasers, Solid-StateMonte Carlo MethodPeri-ImplantitisPeriodontal DebridementPeriodontal PocketPhotochemotherapyProbabilitySensitivity and SpecificityTherapeutic IrrigationTreatment OutcomeUncertainty