Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2023
Cost/effectiveness analysis of treatment options for the rehabilitation of the total edentulous mandible.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhurakivska Khrystyna, Luciano Rossella, Caponio Vito Carlo Alberto, Lo Russo Lucio, Muzio Lorenzo Lo, Mascitti Marco, Troiano Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several solutions are available for the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws. Each treatment option is characterised by specific advantages and drawbacks.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to perform a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of the main rehabilitative solutions of totally edentulous mandibles.
METHODS: Decision tree models were built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2021 software to compare the following strategies: Conventional Denture (CD), Overdenture retained by two implants (OD-2), Overdenture retained by a bar on two implants (ODbar), Overdenture retained by 4 mini-implants (ODmini) and Fixed denture supported by 4 implants (FD). Costs were estimated using data from public rate tables. Effectiveness measures were obtained from a meta-analysis of literature data, normalising the different scales in 0-1 range. A value of 30 000€ per 1 normalised utility points was set as threshold of willingness to pay (WTP). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 1000 Monte Carlo Simulations was performed to characterise uncertainty.
RESULTS: Total costs ranged between 1804,40€ for CD and 10 008,80€ for FD rehabilitations, with an effectiveness of 0,69 and 0,95 normalised points (0-1 scale) for the two solutions. The ODbar resulted to be the most CE strategy at the established WTP value, with the highest Net Monetary Benefit (22 001,20€), followed by the OD-2 rehabilitation (21 866,80€). PSA analysis confirmed the dominance of OD-2 and ODbar strategies, confirming a net separation from the other alternatives.
CONCLUSION: OD stabilised by 2 implants could represent a good rehabilitative solution for patients with edentulous mandible, being a good trade-off in terms of costs and effectiveness. Nevertheless, a standardised measure of oral health-related quality of life is needed to obtain more reliable results.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to perform a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of the main rehabilitative solutions of totally edentulous mandibles.
METHODS: Decision tree models were built using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2021 software to compare the following strategies: Conventional Denture (CD), Overdenture retained by two implants (OD-2), Overdenture retained by a bar on two implants (ODbar), Overdenture retained by 4 mini-implants (ODmini) and Fixed denture supported by 4 implants (FD). Costs were estimated using data from public rate tables. Effectiveness measures were obtained from a meta-analysis of literature data, normalising the different scales in 0-1 range. A value of 30 000€ per 1 normalised utility points was set as threshold of willingness to pay (WTP). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 1000 Monte Carlo Simulations was performed to characterise uncertainty.
RESULTS: Total costs ranged between 1804,40€ for CD and 10 008,80€ for FD rehabilitations, with an effectiveness of 0,69 and 0,95 normalised points (0-1 scale) for the two solutions. The ODbar resulted to be the most CE strategy at the established WTP value, with the highest Net Monetary Benefit (22 001,20€), followed by the OD-2 rehabilitation (21 866,80€). PSA analysis confirmed the dominance of OD-2 and ODbar strategies, confirming a net separation from the other alternatives.
CONCLUSION: OD stabilised by 2 implants could represent a good rehabilitative solution for patients with edentulous mandible, being a good trade-off in terms of costs and effectiveness. Nevertheless, a standardised measure of oral health-related quality of life is needed to obtain more reliable results.